What's Next from Nikon--and do i need it?

eric_arnold · July 8, 2011

The "bells and shistles whistles" you don't need could be the features someone else wants. Some other bells and shistles whistles they don't need could be the features you want.

</blockquote>

shun, i catch your drift. but i don't think it's an irrelevant point. this goes back to the salient point at the center of the debate, which is, who's running the Nikon ship, the marketing/sales dept. or engineering/R&D? obviously, Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, but if i understand Thom correctly, he's saying that Nikon's market strategy may be leading them to a curious place which fails to address the needs of its target market through a market-centric, rather than photographer-centric, philosophy. this may or may not prove to be a disaster--hard to say at this point, because a d4 (most likely the next high-end body we'll see)could deliver the best aspects of the D3x/d3s dichotomy--or it could not.

nikon has already opened up pandora's box with the d7000 and its 16mp DX sensor. who out there thinks this sensor was engineered because 12mp just wasn't cutting it--and who thinks it was in response to Canon's 15mp and 18mp models? how many folks who upgraded from d40/60/90 to d7k and had, say, the 18-200, actually welcome the fact that their expensive all-in-one superzoom has crappy optics on their expensive new camera?

whether we call them whistles, shistles, or thistles, i can't imagine who would actually have a need for a 24mp DX camera. it almost defeats the purpose of DX since if you have to use only the best lenses on it to avoid degradation of IQ from the pixel density, you might as well be shooting FX... which brings us to the D700 replacement.

basically, if you are in Daniel B.'s position, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Why? simple. There's no replacement d700 on the horizon as of just yet. If he buys two more new or lightly-used D700's now, next year he may decide to upgrade again when the d800 comes out, and take a substantial depreciation hit on two expensive cameras. and if his upgrade in 2011 is a d4 --2x or more $$ than a d700, probably--he may no longer be able to afford a two-body FX system.

that's a little too much a case of the cart dragging the horse, if you ask me.

i could live with a d400 which has the d7k's 16mp sensor, metering system, and high-ISO performance and the d300's AF. if the AF was even better, i could live with that too. (typically, AF is rolled out in D(x) bodies then trickles down to D(xxx) bodies. so it makes sense that a d400 launch would follow a d4 launch.) what's unclear is where the d7k fits into all this, since it was neither the d90 nor the d300 replacement.

i guess what it all comes down to is, if we are expecting rational logic and perfect clarity from nikon in terms of their product map in the foreseeable future, we might be disappointed. in the meantime, i'm not going to get caught up in the hype. right now i'm good with the d300s/D3s combo. if D700 prices drop to the sub-$2k level, i'd consider one, even though the D800 looms on the horizon. right now, the cameras which mainly interest me are the small high-IQ compacts with fast prime lenses--a segment which Nikon currently has no entries in, unless you count the P300, which isnt on the optic level of the GF1, EP series or X100.

chanh_nguyen1 · July 8, 2011

Since reading about the rumor of a 24 MP D400 on Thom Hogan's site last week, I have been confused about Nikon's rationale and excited about the new camera (if the rumor is indeed true). 24 MP in a DX sensor? Must be marketing-driven, not photography-driven, I initially thought. But then, this camera is going to be marketed to serious photographers who are not easily swayed by marketing hypes. The Dx and Dx00 cameras have been stellar. I am excited about the possibility of another great camera from Nikon soon.

chanh_nguyen1 · July 8, 2011

24 MP is too much for DX?

An idea for Nikon: How about a menu option to combine 4 pixels to 1 in-camera for an effective 6 MP with better noise and tonal range/gradation when desired?

This way if I am lucky enough to be on the Galapagos with a 400 mm f2.8 lens I can take advantage of the high resolution. And I can still get better IQ with my 18-200mm lens when I am not so lucky. Electronics may not be fast enough yet for a practical implementation, but is the idea inherently dumb?

tobycline · July 8, 2011

I too love my D700. I love the hyper focal idea (better trade mark that one).

P. S. If it's a great photo you are looking at, Daniel Bayer probably took it ;) Kudos to him on getting so many cycles

out of his 700's while still shooting so much K-14.

ShunCheung · July 8, 2011

Eric and Chanh, here is where you should separte rumors and facts. Let's make it clear, to date, Nikon has not announced any DX-format DSLR that is 24MP. It is merely a rumor on a few web sites, including Thom Hogan's. Please do not discuss rumors as if they were facts. Perhaps I should simply say "Please do not discuss rumors, period, full stop."

I'll give you an example. A couple of weeks before Nikon annuonced the D7000 almost a year ago, some information was leaked. The rumor back then was that the D7000 would not have a built-in AF motor in the body. I watched some DPReview forum posts complaining that was a stupid move on Nikon's part. As it turns out, the D7000 not only has a built-in AF motor but also can meter with no-CPU AI/AI-S lenses, a grade above the D90.

Some rumors indeed turn out to be true; most of them do not. They are confusing and in my humble opinion, not good for this forum. That is why I discourage discussing them.

chanh_nguyen1 · July 8, 2011

Shun - I fully appreciate that it is a rumor and said so. I wasn't asking whether the rumor was true or not. I was just making an observation that Nikon knows what it is doing for photography, not just marketing. But re-reading my post, I can see how a cursory reading could give the impression that I assume the rumor is true despite my earlier qualifier that "if the rumor is indeed true"

My second post is merely an idea, or more precisely, a question regarding camera design to maximize the benefits of having huge pixel counts. A technical curiosity, not rumor chasing.

I do appreciate you keeping the forum on solid ground.

eric_arnold · July 8, 2011

well, shun, i for one, am hoping Hogan is wrong about 24mp DX. and i'm not trying to fan the flames of rumor-mongering. i'm just trying to consider this scenario and its implications upon the current market. i realize thinking about cameras which dont yet exist is ahead of the curve. but if anyone at Nikon is reading this, and 24mp DX is even remotely near a grain of truth, i hope they will reconsider while there's still time, and listen to all the photographers' opinions here on what they actually need (as opposed to what will be marketed to them). 18mp on DX actually makes more sense to me (though that's still pushing it, IMO), and they could maintain symmetry between the DX and FX line as with the d300 and d700. but, to be honest, 18mp on DX is still more than i need, though i suppose 18mp on FX could be more useful -- as long as the price of external HDs and large-capacity memory cards continues to drop.

ty_mickan · July 8, 2011

imho, digicam manufacturers need to concentrate on dynamic range first and foremost, and only once they have that issue sorted should they bother with more MP (which would only be a "see we've got that many as well" type feature).

jyoungman · July 9, 2011

The common complaint that camera bodies can never have radio triggers because of different frequency requirements in different countries would (for the manufacturers) be neatly solved by moving part of the radio system into the battery. Then, photographers need only buy the battery whose radio channels are consistent with the country in which they propose to take photographs.

Everybody wins something: photographers get built-in radio triggers, and the manufacturers get to sell us even more, and different, camera batteries.

Wouter Willemse · July 9, 2011

Regardless of megapixels counts and features that can be build into firmware (and do not need expensive hardware additions), to me it seems the main issue where Canon and Nikon are running into is a saturated market. The bottom end of the market can be swayed with more megapixels, more video features and in-camera RAW editing. The upper end of the market is a much tougher sell. So, they MUST have a trick up their sleeve to persuade us, while at the same time not sacrificing the highest end models.... And now, realistically, what kind of a feature could that be?

Radio triggers, hyper focal aids, live view improvements: it only helps selected groups, not the whole mass. Better AF, sure (wider spread across the frame on FX for sure), but substantially better enough to make a D300 or D3 owner upgrade? Do-able, but a tall order. Dynamic Range is one thing that everyone will welcome, other than that, it seems to me a myriad of additional features each addressing a niche. Which will scare those looking for a digital FM away, since the camera will become more complex. And so far, a camera like that continues to seem unlikely since the cost of a FX sensor makes the other electronic gadgets relatively inexpensive. Maybe address the niches more, and accept that that will make the cameras more expensive (=more different spare parts, different production lines, more R&D, more training and marketing to underline the different options).... Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So far, the digital race went fine with the marketing department running the show showering us in new features. I think we've reached a point where the marketing people must go to the client (*), must let the engineers be creatively insane and dare to take a guess on something truely new. To me, it makes the next round of cameras really interesting since they enter a different market than any before, and it has to show the guts of the manufacterer more than before.

And hopefully all that will bring the D700 to a pricepoint I can sell to myself :-)

(*) For this, the D7000 was a pleasant surprise. Yes, more megapixels, but beyond that, it is a camera that improves in so many ways for photographers. It shows Nikon understood which gap to fill and, I think, compromised the D7000 just enough to leave place for a higher-grade DX camera too.

dan_south · July 9, 2011

the d3x (resolution) and the d3s (high-ISO) have everything a serious shooter needs.

</blockquote>

Not everything.

<ul>

<li>What if you need to shoot high resolution (20+ MP) at ISO 3200 or higher?</li>

<li>What if you need 1080p video?</li>

<li>What if you need to use mirror lock up and the self-timer at the same time?</li>

<li>What if you need a no-compromise implementation of Live View?</li>

</ul>

There is a camera that supplies all of the above in one moderately priced body, but it's not made by Nikon. Yes, I think I have a pretty good idea of what we might see in a D4.

vince-p · July 9, 2011

Btw, if anyone knows the answer, even roughly, it would help temper the discussion: what percentage of Nikon's profits, even strictly limited to Nikon photography profits, comes from pro-sumer and professional level equipment? Five percent? Certainly not more than ten I would think.

We talk as if the future rides on beating the 5dMkII and its successors but the company's future really rides on Ashton Kutcher's pretty face, inducing people to buy the D3100 and on down to tons of fast moving relatively low cost p&s crap that no one can seriously be interested in.

dan_south · July 9, 2011

Good points, Vince.

As they say: "If you want to dine with the classes, you have to sell to the masses." Go Aston, go! :-)

vince-p · July 9, 2011

Btw, if anyone knows the answer, even roughly, it would help temper the discussion: what percentage of Nikon's profits, even strictly limited to Nikon photography profits, comes from pro-sumer and professional level equipment? Five percent? Certainly not more than ten I would think.

We talk as if the future rides on beating the 5dMkII and its successors but the company's future really rides on Ashton Kutcher's pretty face, inducing people to buy the D3100 and on down to tons of fast moving relatively low cost p&s crap that no one can seriously be interested in.

ShunCheung · July 9, 2011

Vince, a few days ago, I chcked with Nikon USA about the percentage of their DSLRs sold being DX, and they declined to answer because that is properetry information. My estimate is that well over 90% of Nikon DSLRs sold is DX; I have no doubt about that. The remaining question is the last digit, i.e. whether it is 93%, 95% or 96% DX.

In other words, nobody outside of Nikon upper management knows the answer to your question. Keep asking it will merely lead to useless debates about different estimates and opinions, while nobody can provide a definitive answer.

The latest numbers show that Nikon sold something like 14M cameras last year, and about 4.25M were DSLRs. In other words, Nikon sold roughly 10M point-and-shoots a year.

The problem is that there is so much competition in the point-and-shoot market that it is difficult to make any profit. Nikon's cash cow seems to be the low-end DSLRs such as the D3100, D5100 and their predecessors, but that market is saturating.

Traditionally, the high-end SLR/DSLRs are there to prop up the company's stature. When consumers see the likes of John Shaw, Frans Lanting, Bob Krist, Dave Black, etc. etc. use Nikon, it helps them sell Coolpixes and D3100's. Canon does pretty much the same thing and sponsors a bunch of well known professional photographers.

Nikon may be selling the D3X at/near $8000 each, but so much R&D effort has to go into those high-end cameras and they can't possibly be selling a whole lot of them to spread the cost, I serious doubt that Nikon is making money on the D3X per se, but Nikon needs to have a 24MP flag-ship DSLR to show that they have a complete system. Its benefit to Nikon lies elsewhere.

rodeo_joe1 · July 9, 2011

Allan. Sorry to burst your bubble but the hyperfocal focusing thing has already been tried by Canon. The first incarnation required you to take 2 distance "readings" by focusing the camera on the nearest and furthest points of focus, the camera would then work out the aperture and point of focus required - cumbersome and not too successful in pratice apparently. The second incarnation was to position two focus points in the viewfinder and the camera would do the rest.

Never had a Canon with that facility to try it out, but it obviously never took the world by storm.

vince-p · July 9, 2011

Shun,

You are right about Nikon's corporate identity and history being the reason they remain competitive for, or in, first place at the high end of the dslr market. It's an essential part of the company's identity. I was saying much the same as what you were saying, however: that this represents a tiny part of their revenue stream; that it costs a ton of money which I agree, is never really made back because even as you put the D3X or D3S on the market you are continuing to do the R&D necessary to supplant them later.What I meant to correct is the attitude we often display in these discussions (which are not pointless in so far as we are very active photographers and we are expressing what we believe we need and want in the next generation of cameras), that somehow this part of the market represents the bulk of what Nikon does and what Nikon has to think about. It ain't.

As far as proprietary information goes, it's a public company in an industry carefully tracked by financial analysts and no doubt plenty of people have that information -- or very good guesses at that information. There'd be no way to analyze the prospects of the company if you didn't have it. I'm not surprised they won't give it away freely but that doesn't mean it's not out there. No matter. You've made the point convincingly: this part of the market is tiny from a percentage of sales point of view; but crucial to the company's identity.

Uhooru · July 9, 2011

Eric didnt find the artcle but read this other one he wrote re his 2011 predictions......

"Larger sensors return. No full frame cameras in 2010, plenty of them in 2011. The question is whether we really need

them or not (yes, I know 100,000 of you will immediately write me "I want a D700s or D700x", but frankly, the current

crop of full frame cameras from all makers is pretty darned good; if you're not getting good results now, a newer

camera isn't going to help much)."

That statemwnt makes sense to me. In other words i haven't really seen technoligically driven photograaphy really

make much difference in the quality of still photographs themselves for a while now.

eric_arnold · July 9, 2011

i haven't really seen technoligically driven photograaphy really make much difference in the quality of still photographs themselves for a while now.

</blockquote>

right, that's exactly the point. whether we believe in Thomstradamus as a prognosticator of future development or not, he's realized that where we stand now in DSLRville is a pretty stable plateau, all things considered. put another way, we've evolved over the past decade to a place where the main limiting factor in photographic quality isn't technology.

an additional point is that while advances may be incremental at the upper echelon level, the trickle-down aspects of technology have created a robust yield of affordable bodies with excellent feature sets. compare a d5100 with a d100, for instance. the problem is when you've gotten past that and are using an advanced body, either because you need a specific feature or you simply can afford to spend that much, the specific things you want either may come with a bunch of additional doo-hickeys you don't need and/or may require a premium buy-in which isn't necessarily cost-effective from a photographer's point of view.

i sure wish i had hoarded a few d40s when i could have (not to mention jumped on the $600 D200 fire sale); in the months and years to come, we may be saying the same thing about d300s and d700 bodies, once they are no longer available new.

moi1 · July 10, 2011

I currently shoot with a D300 and really enjoy it although I do plan on moving to full frame with a D700 soon and possibly spend some € for the Fuji X100 for its size. Then Nikon can come out with whatever body it wants with all its bells and whistles but I won't be spending another dime on bodies but spending on good glass. I have no need for video on a DSLR, when I want to shoot videos of my 7 months old son, I use my Iphone4.

charles_collette · July 11, 2011

After reading all the post in this tread I didn't see anybody mention the following:

- a mind reader so I don't have to tell the camera what it is I want a picture of (LOL)

- a really working built in sensor cleaning system

- cheap (under $1000) DX zoom lenses that are fast over the full range

I can think of a lot more, but then I would repeat what others already said here.

roypanos · July 11, 2011

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4801075">Martynas Aleksa</a> wrote

"Nikon, please, hire a team of professional programmers/developers and make the otherwise brilliant Capture NX2 FASTER and BUG-FREE!"

Absolutely. But I would add, why on earth doesn't NXn include mapped distortion correction at least for Nikkors? DxO can manage this, why can't Nikon? At a stroke it would eliminate many potential cavils about the lenses and, I would guess, sell a lot more software. Nikon surely have all the data readily available.

Every time I've ever suggested this it never seems to evoke any responses, which baffles me as it seems such an obvious and effective improvement.

Roy

luke_kaven · July 11, 2011

With Sony deploying a 24mp APS-c sensor, and by all indications, planning to use it themselves in an upcoming camera, it'd be hard for Nikon to look the other way, since Nikon doesn't seem to be making their own sensors in this form factor. I wouldn't be upset about 24mp DX personally, and I see a conceptual shift taking place as far as the use and importance of those pixels in the final product. I do not see any downside to this.

Harder to predict is what FX will bring. If Sony is making a 32-36MP sensor, Nikon will have an option to use it. If Nikon decides to go their own way with an FX sensor, then all bets are off on what that will be. I am just fine going high MP if that's what it means. For personal preference, I'd like the 32-36MP in the D4, with downsampling for low light response. I see a competitive edge in it. I also see Canon breathing down Nikon's neck with a 1DsIV, and that camera seems sure to be a high MP camera.

ShunCheung · July 11, 2011

In the past few days, I serached around for this new 24MP APS-C sensor Sony is supposed to be producing. As far as I can tell, Sony has never officially announced such sensor. It is merely a rumor propelled by various rumor sites starting back in last January, about 6 months ago.

This 24MP DX sensor seems to be the basis for a lot of argument/discussion here. I would say you are on shaky arounds. If anybody can provide a link to an official announcement from Sony, please do so. Otherwise, I think we should wait until such sensor is reality. Of course, with my luck, perhaps Sony will announce it tomorrow. :-)

eric_arnold · July 11, 2011

If Sony is making a 32-36MP sensor, Nikon will have an option to use it.

</blockquote>

besides that being a huge if--a 32mp FX sensor hasnt even made it to rumor stage AFAIK-- you have to think about where would that fit in nikon's product line. nikon's $8000 24 MP FX camera was priced about $3k too high for enthusiasts. i can't see a 32-36mp camera being less than that. at that level of investiture, people who just wanted a d700 with video or two card slots are effectively priced out of the market. and people who do have 10k for a body are probably thinking about digital medium format.

it makes a lot more sense that nikon would go to 18mp for a d700 replacement and save the big guns for the d3x replacement...which leads us back to thom's original dilemma: for current d3x or d3s users, what incentive is there to buy into a new camera?

Sign In

What's Next from Nikon--and do i need it?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in