Cancellation of release of the DL series

[ilkka_nissila]

That was news to me. The D500 is expensive, but I thought they'd shifted quite a number of them. I'm sure not as many as D7200s, but the margin is higher - and there's something to be said for a DX halo camera. No, a "D400" wouldn't have been as capable, but - particularly given the D7100's buffer issues - my impression is that a number of those who "settled" for a D7100 (or switched to a 7D2) might have given Nikon more money for D300-class handling and speed.

 

My point wasn't that the D500 itself isn't popular - it is, and well regarded by users, but it doesn't seem to alter the public perception of the brand enough. While many D500 and D5 users are excited by the autofocus (which is very sensitive and accurate even in very low light, and cross type points cover much more of the frame with fast lenses) and almost infinite burst depth (owing in part to fast card support; XQD and UHS-II) outside of the specific market the public isn't buying more Nikons as a result than they used to. On the contrary they seem to be flocking to Canon (who only offer CF and SD UHS-I support apart from the single model 1DX II which supports one CFast card and one CF). It is rather curious. When Nikon had a considerable base ISO dynamic range advantage (they still do, but it is getting smaller) Canon still sold more cameras than Nikon but the difference was smaller. So what can Nikon do to gain market share? Perhaps one factor is showing that they have the expertise to compete in areas which the public sees as important in the future. This includes software, wireless control and image transfer, live view AF, the mirrorless large sensor ILC market, DX primes etc. However, the problem which I see is that what works when actually doing photography is one thing, and what sounds important in specifications aren't always the same thing.

[Dieter Schaefer]

outside of the specific market the public isn't buying more Nikons as a result than they used to.

So much then for the "halo effect" of a flagship camera. Does it actually matter for those in the market for a low-end DSLR what the company offers above the lines they are actually considering? Does it matter to them that the DX prime lens system isn't a system at all? Aren't most of them just buying the kit lens or the two-lens kit and leave it at that? <br><br> Those issues seem to increase in importance with those who get in at the D7x00 level (and/or the lower FX level); the importance of a brand's reputation also increases significantly at that level.

However, the problem which I see is that what works when actually doing photography is one thing, and what sounds important in specifications aren't always the same thing.

True. And Nikon needs to get a lot better at threading that needle.

[rossb]

My daughter and her husband hiked up to the High Peaks on Friday and were sitting there and there was another couple up there. My daughter said the guy had a large Nikon with him with a quick draw sling type thing. A Condor was soaring around and came straight towards them before turning off and my daughter said the guy with a Nikon swung his camera up to grab a once in a lifetime Condor shot and his camera would not fire. After a round of every foul words possible he said his battery was dead.

 

I would have liked to have seen the bird up close and to see if it was Condor #36 who I have seen up close before. I doubt I could have got the shot myself with my mechanical camera. The camera would have fired and focus would have been at infinity and worked but exposure would have been pot luck and very questionable. I would have taken a snap however.

 

Anyway I enjoyed talking with you guys and think I will skip out on the thread. I do not know what Nikon should do.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ross: Thank you for providing food for thought, and letting me perform market research from you. I'm surprised about the battery thing, though - I took two spare batteries everywhere around Yellowstone, and despite being in negative temperatures (even in American speak) and shooting and reviewing hundreds of shots per day, I barely made the first battery drop a bar. I have taken an Eos 620 (film body) on a trip and found its battery dead, though. It's much less likely I'd mis-time reaching the end of a memory card than a film roll, too.<br />

<br />

Dieter: Arguably Canon's 1Dx feature tick list sounds superior to the D5's (certainly in frame rate). It's a perfectly capable camera - I'm less worried about Nikon losing sales to Canon (they're both full systems, the biggest difference for most people is how you like to move your fingers when changing dials - although Nikon could do with catching up in the video autofocus stakes). I'm more worried about people going with smaller or mirrorless systems, and Nikon not being able to market the difference. They took so long over doing this that the mirrorless systems actually do have fairly complete lens ranges now, so asserting that difference is harder.<br />

<br />

Nikon should really ask more enthusiasts what they want from a camera and what they want to do with it. I really have no idea how bad the "lack of DX primes" is for the average DX shooter (especially given the 18-35 and 50-100mm f/1.8s). I'm sure Nikon do market research, it just doesn't seem to tally with the self-selecting group of enthusiasts on forums like this. Maybe they mostly do it regionally? I'm curious - has anyone here actually been asked to fill in a Nikon survey? I did get one or two on Nikon's web site, but they're never detailed enough for me to impart anything specific to their line-up.<br />

<br />

I strongly suspect at least the marketing isn't educating the prospective customers. I did have a little go at Nikon when I saw their marketing campaign aiming the 1-series at women (at least half the people I know with SLRs - and indeed large format cameras - are female and would be patronised; I'm the only person I know with a 1-series, internet aside). The 1-series brochure I've seen in Nikon UK HQ is awful (both in being dull and not showing what the camera can do); fortunately they've recently added a nice coffee table book shot by a brand ambassador. I've never seen a bit of Nikon marketing actually tell you what your DSLR will do for you that your smartphone can't, though. I don't know why.

[BeBu Lamar]

If Nikon has the R&D money to do research on the mirrorless they could gain sales. If they could come up with a good EVF and a good electronic shutter they will have the market.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I really have no idea how bad the "lack of DX primes" is for the average DX shooter (especially given the 18-35 and 50-100mm f/1.8s).

In addition to the set of Nikon FX f/1.8 primes that can be used. I wouldn't expect DX primes with the same focal lengths to be substantially smaller and lighter. And Tokina's 11-16/2.8, 11-20/2.8, 14-20/2 certainly take care of the rest without being unduly larger or heavier than a prime of any of the focal lengths they cover. Especially if one considers that those missing DX primes ought to be f/1.4 or even faster to allow DOF control similar to FX. Who really would purchase a 16/1.4 or even 10/1.4 DX lens, provided they are even possible to make. Nikon wide-angle and superwide-angle prime lenses (zooms too) are challenging to design because they have to use the FX flange-to-sensor distance.

[ilkka_nissila]

Zoom lenses typically have more variation in image quality across focal lengths, section of the image, and lens sample than primes. One could venture a guess that a prime could be designed and built in such a way that the image quality is consistent across the image and has less variation since the lens can be simpler in design and construction. This could help avoid the situation where users have to hunt for a "good sample" which some users do seem to spend time on. A DX prime would cover just the needed DX sensor area whereas an FX lens lets in light in a wider angle and the extra light bounces around in the lens and between camera and lens, which can sometimes lead to additional flare and ghosting. If the sun is just outside of the DX frame but inside the FX frame then this really can cause quite serious ghosting. These reasons would favour making some DX wide angle primes, even if it is one or two, to cover the most needed focal lengths. I realize the flange distance is a problem but I still think they should make some DX optimized wide angle primes and let the market decide whether they are popular or not. I know several users of DX cameras who really want fast DX wide angles and can make use of them. I realize FX would work better for these applications but if money is tight, DX is what they will use. I have a friend who bought a Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Tokina 11-16/2.8 and I'm sure they'd love to use a Nikon lens instead, if available. The fact that there are so many third party wide angle options for DX suggests that the market exists, but Nikon is not taking part in it. The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is huge and a prime would be much smaller. DX cameras make less loud sound when the exposure is made (shutter and mirror movement creates the sound) and documentary photography with a wide angle would benefit from this fact. A smaller lens would make the camera a bit less conspicuous.