Still waiting for my F7!

[rossb]

I have a 28mm and a 50mm AFD Nikon lenses. On the Half Dome hike I am going to carry the 50mm with me. I will take a few filters of course as B/W film photography is all about those filters.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ah, okay - just checking you weren't carrying a 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, or similar! And yes, even I still have a small colour filter set sitting around (plus some IR filters and light pollution reduction filters, and polarisers, which are useful on digital). I should do more black and white, even if I tend to do it digitally...

[rossb]

On my Olympus OMD it has B/W filters in the menu and of course you can shoot color and convert. However for myself if I shoot my Olympus or my cell phone I just shoot color. Mostly the cell phone for color because I will post it up on facebook right off. We went to Natural Bridges State park today to see the Monarch butterflys and then down to the beach.. I shot about 15 pictures in B/W and none on my cell phone. I took every shot of the Grandkids and did not try for a butterfly picture. Oh and one shot of my wife taking a photo of the kids with her tablet camera. There was a girl on the wooden walkway with a strange 6 ft horn that made the most unusual noise. I almost asked her if I could take a photo but chickened out. Probably video would have been better so everyone could hear the strange horn sound. Edited March 3, 2017 by rossb

[FPapp]

I'd be really happy if Nikon could update the firmware for the F5, F6, & F100 to be compatible with the new electronic aperture lenses! If they did this there would be no need tor an F7 IMO!

[BeBu Lamar]

I'd be really happy if Nikon could update the firmware for the F5, F6, & F100 to be compatible with the new electronic aperture lenses! If they did this there would be no need tor an F7 IMO!

 

You think it's only firmware? I think it requires hardware too.

[James Bryant]

I just checked B and H's web site and they are now are shipping black and white chemicals. I did not check color chemicals. This may explain why my last B&H order was shipped Fed Ex.

[rossb]

Your right James, BHPhoto seems to have changed their minds about it. I think it was a huge problem for many photographers. Anyway I have already transitioned to Freestyle Photo and will continue to buy film and chemicals from them. Freestyle is only 400 miles and they ship right away so it is working well for me.

[FPapp]

FPapp said: ↑

I'd be really happy if Nikon could update the firmware for the F5, F6, & F100 to be compatible with the new electronic aperture lenses! If they did this there would be no need tor an F7

You think it's only firmware? I think it requires hardware too.

 

What hardware would be needed? My D300 and D700 only required a firmware update. The electronic aperture lenses have even less moving parts.

 

I would imagine that the firmware for the film cameras couldn't be updated by the user, but perhaps could be done at a Nikon service center.

[Richard Williams]

The D300 and D3 are the earliest dSLRs to support E lenses (see Shun's article: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-e-lenses.503803/ ), and were introduced less than a year before the first of these lenses, so Nikon must already have been thinking ahead about compatibility. They may have hardware that is absent from earlier dSLRs (which were never updated to support E lenses) and film SLRs.

[rossb]

So it kind of sounds like that the F7 should be compatible with the "E" lens. That way the photographer with Pro line DSLR camera's could also use their lenses on an F7. Anyway it would make a good buddy with a full frame DSLR for some photographers that would like a film camera also.

 

 

However back to the problem is Nikon is interested in increasing their profit margin and an F7 most likely would not sell very well. In my opinion they should get rid of the digital point and shoot line. All 4000 different models. Have one entry level DSLR, one medium level DSLR and 2 Pro line DSLR. That would be 4 models. I am lumping the little mirrorless camera that did not sell in with the point and shoot. If the lowly FM10 Cosina camera is profitable then keep that one. If not then dump it. Slash and burn sort of and I am sure they are talking about all that and what should be done. There are employees to consider and what happens to them..

 

 

I decided to jump ship this morning. I am currently looking for a Leica M6 and will start off with a Voightlander f1.7 Ultron 35mm lens.

Edited March 5, 2017 by rossb

[Dieter Schaefer]

Have one entry level DSLR, one medium level DSLR and 2 Pro line DSLR. That would be 4 models.

I don't see how that could possibly work unless you mean 4 for each DX and FX.. Especially given that the entry level DSLRs make the majority of the sales for Nikon. I am leaving mirrorless out for the time being as there are several possible scenarios where they could enter the equation. I can see a merging of the D3x00 and D5x00 series, although the price point needs to be right (as in sufficiently low). Possibly better to merge the D5x00 with the D7x00 line at the D7x00 level. And certainly keep the D500. So there, at least three DX models already. For FX, I can see a lower end camera, even below the current D610. And a merger of the D750 and D810 line into a D820x/h configuration (x for many MPs and h for high-speed, so some 50+MP, and some with maybe 24MP or up to 36MP); the price point would be around $2500-$3000 and the feature set equivalent to what the D500 offers now. To not leave the $2000 sector unoccupied, a merge of the current D610 and D750 was needed, the FX equivalent to the mid-range DX camera mentioned above. And, of course, the high-speed pro-style body, possibly in form of a D5X/H as well. So that makes at least 3 if not 4 models for FX, for a total of at least 6 if not 7 models. And at least for the time being, that's in addition to any mirrorless DX and/or FX camera Nikon may come up with.<br><br>

[BeBu Lamar]

They should go back to 1 model. Just a Nikon with no model number. New lens mount. New lens line up. Everything new from the ground up. Like when they just starting out but with lots of experience. Should be working on an electronic shutter and an electronic viewfinder which the mirrorless needs but are the weak points of the mirrorless. Edited March 6, 2017 by BeBu Lamar

[rossb]

I'm just chatting as I do not know what Nikon should do. However Nikon knows what is making money and what is losing money.

[Andrew Garrard]

I decided to jump ship this morning. I am currently looking for a Leica M6 and will start off with a Voightlander f1.7 Ultron 35mm lens.

 

Oh dear, I hope we didn't encourage you! Still, a lesson Nikon should learn from.<br />

<br />

On the AF-E lens compatibility question, I don't believe there are extra pins in the mount to enable electronic aperture, are there? Unless something in the back of an E lens fouls on the aperture lever if it's moved (which seems unlikely, I assume it just flaps in mid-air) then I'd have thought any support would be purely firmware - although that doesn't mean it's actually possible to update it, especially on the F5. (Does anyone know?)<br />

<br />

And no, the "F7" is absolutely unlikely to be a money-making camera by every understanding I have of the camera market. The only reason for Nikon to do it would be as a vanity project, effectively by engineers who might have love of Nikon's history - a bit like the Volkswagen group making the Bugatti Veyron at a loss. It'd be there to demonstrate what the company can do - possibly a good thing in times when the response to many Nikon products is "meh". Arguably the same could be said of the D3x - I've no idea whether that ever turned a profit either, although they certainly got used. And if Cosina or someone wanted to make an affordable film body with an F mount (so not an "F7"), I'm suggesting that they should do it out of their own funds, and pay Nikon a reasonable amount for the mount licence. My impression is that Nikon have so far been unwilling to share their mount protocol (e.g. with Sigma) - I'm saying that it wouldn't hurt them to let someone else play in the film camera space using their lenses, not that Nikon themselves should do this or pay for the privilege.</p>

 

However Nikon knows what is making money and what is losing money.

 

I'm sure they do. I'm less sure if they know why, or what products will make money. That's possibly the bigger concern about the recent announcements, from a PR and consumer confidence perspective.<br />

<br />

As for what the DSLR line-up should look like... well, obviously I'm completely unqualified, but if I were asked to guess:

FX is the easy bit:

• Pentamirror (which isn't as bad on an FX body as DX, and saves more weight), no AF motor lightweight FX body below the D610, 24MP sensor. Possibly MultiCAM 3500, if not the same AF as the D610. 1/4000s shutter, 1/200s flash sync, possibly a single SD card slot, similar low-end specs. Two dials - which I believe would be a first for a Nikon body with no AF motor? Essentially the handling of a D810 in a plastic body, without the robustness, connectivity or compatibility of a high-end body. If Nikon want D5x00 users to upgrade to FX this would do it. Given that the D610 lists around $1500 and the D7200 lists around $1000, I'd aim at $1200. I guess this would be a "D620" or "D650" - it would be a "D500" if Nikon hadn't gone there with the DX line. Possibly add a touchscreen for consistency.
  
• D750 successor: Lightweight "little brother" to the D8x0 line. The 36MP sensor is a possibility, but seems counter-productive compared to a speed tweak of the existing one (maybe BSI). Possibly make it a true D700 successor, built for speed: 7-8fps, XQD+UHS-II, D810-class shutter, touchscreen, MultiCAM 20K, effectively to the D500 what the D700 was to the D300 (but with budget build). D700 owners not currently in the D8x0 club might want D700/D8x0/D500 build quality, but I think that's counterproductive for weight. Priced between the current D750 and D810. Another option is to put the D5 sensor in this body (as the D700 was to the D3), which would save a custom sensor, but the low-end dynamic range might be an issue for a general-use camera - and it means consumer confusion as to why there's no 24MP FX body with a pentaprism that's the D7x00's big brother.
  
• D810 successor: Touchscreen, MultiCAM 20K, XQD+UHS-II or CF+UHS-II options. Sensor: likely Sony's 42MP sensor from the A7R2, tuned to maintain the ISO 64 dynamic range (or better) of the D810 - otherwise this will lose some customers. Could go higher MP (mostly to trump Canon), but 42MP is a good match for shooting 4K at 2:1 oversampling or shooting 8K time lapse (or even actual 8K if Nikon make a fast enough Expeed). D8x0 form-factor and compatibility. Possibly remove the flash but add an integrated radio trigger. Using the A7R2's PDOS for video/live view and for confirming AF accuracy would be valuable given the difficulties of hitting focus at high MP. BSI sensor to improve the high ISO behaviour (where the D810 currently lags the D750). I'd love to see a switch to 16-bit raw files with a view to competing with RED sensors. I'd expect a moderate premium over the D810.
  
• D5s: The D5 is still relatively new, and it's hard to know what to say here. Better 4K video support is probably high on the list, possibly with PDOS. Despite requests from people like Thom Hogan, I can't see the business case for a (high pixel count) D5x unless it's trivial for Nikon to make both SKUs.
  
• Df2: Depends entirely on how well the Df actually sold. If they're going to do it, design it properly with focus groups and design revisions, don't doodle it on a napkin. Like the "F7", if Nikon are going to do it, the 100th anniversary is the year.
  

DX is harder. I'll reverse the order...

• I do think the D500 is fine where it is, and I've been advocating a high-end DX body for a long time (even though I don't personally need it). It's also fairly new, so probably unlikely to get an imminent update (especially by the standards of the D300s).
  
• I can't see that getting rid of an ~$1000 D7200 is wise either, though unless Nikon choose to put the Multi-CAM 2K in it, the only obvious upgrade I can think of is 4K video (maybe with PDOS) and a UHS-II card, and the touchscreen. This and the proposed budget FX model provide two paths - a prosumer model for people with expensive DX glass and a pentaprism, or pay a relatively small premium to step up to FX but don't get legacy FX lens support or a pentaprism.
  
• If the D7200 successor gets a Multi-CAM 2K, the next D5x00 (and we've only just had one!) could usefully step up to a Multi-CAM 3500. Adding 4K video wouldn't hurt, but might be overkill. I'd concentrate on making SnapBridge work properly, rather than being an inferior option to an Eye-Fi.
  
• The D3x00 is a confusing question that's outside my pay grade. They're very much designed to a budget, and margins must be very thin. They're competing against mid-range mirrorless cameras that are cheaper to make and smaller. Arguably Nikon could do with upgrading the AF so that they can argue the merits of PDAF more effectively - but then they could do with an FX pentaprism for similar reasons, and that's going to up the price. There's a psychological argument that people don't like buying the cheapest model, so the D3x00 should be there solely to make people buy the D5x00 series - but if the D5x00 is made more competent and more expensive, that effect may not work (and I'm sure people do buy the D3x00 series now just because it's cheap - although savvy buyers should probably be buying previous generations). If Nikon want to differentiate here, my assertion that a collapsible mirror box ought to be possible would mean they could compete with the size of mirrorless more effectively (though the collapsible 18-55 does this a bit) - but it might have too much of an effect of making the camera more expensive, and keeping everything aligned might be a nightmare (though they could drop to a 16MP sensor to hide some of it...) Or they could actually go PDOS and get rid of the mirror (and maybe do without an EVF) to save money and size, but that might confuse the market more than it helps - essentially it would get rid of every advantage of an SLR except for lens compatibility. So, like I said, complicated.
  

Oh, and I'd admit the death of the 1 series, release some DX primes, get a 135mm prime out pronto (now Sigma have an apparently good one), and ditch any CoolPix based on a <1" sensor. Another APS-C-based CoolPix A (with decent handling), or a mirrorless system branded CoolPix with big sensor and an F-mount adaptor in the box, might still be worth investigating - as would making a 1" sensor system that can do things the RX100 can't. As Thom Hogan has pointed out, having a consistent interface and accessory compatibilities might well help them pick up sales at relatively little cost - both from DSLR owners wanting a second system and from new buyers thinking to upgrade to a DSLR in the future.<br />

<br />

But if I knew how to run a company the size of Nikon (even after shrinkage), I'd not be posting on photo forums.

[rossb]

Andrew it's not anything said or done here. It's just B/W film is my hobby and Nikon has moved on with the world as they should. I guess the jumping ship comment was kind of delayed as I quit buying Nikon products when I gave my D200 and associated gear to my son back in the day. However I still have my FM2n and a couple Nikon prime lenses.

 

I am going to go look at a Lieca M6 today. The only way I can determine if I like the camera is stick it up to my eye and fiddle around with it. Then I will walk away and over the next week think about it. I am not purchasing a Leica today but I will buy something in there just because I will be in the shop.

[ilkka_nissila]

Nikon cannot improve by making products worse but seeking for ways to make everything better. Taking out features or making them worse is just a path to a free fall like we see with the D3400. The answer is is to make things better, to motivate people to buy. This means improved viewfinders (not the atrocity of a pentamirror which is always fuzzy) by improving the optics (improved coatings, sharper lenses, alternatives to the LCD overlay which makes the image less clear, improved and user interchangeable focusing screens; Katz eye have shown that a considerable improvement is possible) and offering accessory EVFs or interchangeable ones at the top of the line. If Nikon do not push harder to make things better, then others will take their business. They cannot do well by competing in who makes the worst viewfinder; it would only embarrass them and make them and DSLRs look bad in their greatest area of strength.

 

Live view AF and wireless technology are where Nikon is currently weak. They need to get the wireless control and image transfer work fluidly and reliably. Also they need to implement something like Canon's dual pixel AF (if I'm not mistaken, several manufacturers have related patents, including Sony and Nikon, that could lead to an implementation). This is an important area because a lot of people now are used to holding the camera at arm's length, for better or worse, and live view is their first contact with how the camera works. If the live view of a Nikon they try looks delayed and poor quality in low light, and live view AF hunts and can't follow a moving subject, they will buy a Canon instead, even if Nikon offered great AF during viewfinder shooting. And the pentamirror viewfinder will ensure they won't be attracted to using it. So it is a dead end trying to sell these cameras in the store. Canon is improving their already dominant market share because they've got these things sorted out and their live view experience is quite good.

 

Make it better, not worse. That is the only way Nikon can to some degree get back some of the market share they lost. The D3400 is probably going to be discontinued since they stripped it of features in the last upgrade, which is totally disrespectful to the customer. The D5600 in my opinion looks quite good, but is too cheap and depends on large volumes and Nikon should try to make a push at the 1000-2000€ classes to make people motivated to buy a more expensive model. Getting wireless to work well and reliably, adding built in GPS, support for radio remote flash, a tilting touchscreen, dual pixel AF or whatever Nikon develops to compete with it, 4K, improved viewfinder coatings, Multi-CAM 20k, solid state batteries (?), XQD to solve the effects of a small buffer etc. there are so many improvements Nikon could add to the D7200's and D610's successor and take back market share from Canon. I think although most users use the viewfinder AF for still photography, the fact that Nikon's live view AF is retarded and they can't make a reliable consumer level wifi are embarrassments which Nikon should fix as quickly as possible.

 

They can also make a lot of improvements in the high end. Look at WT-6 reviews at B&H photo-video. Compare to WT-5's reviews. What happened there? The WT-5/6 should also plug directly on the D810's successor, if possible. Studio shooters want wireless tethering now, and the D5 isn't a studio camera. Offer interchangeable focusing screens at the high end and maybe interchangeable viewfinders. Make the D810 faster by adding XQD support and focus better with Multi-CAM 20k. There are numerous ways in which Nikon can make the user experience better at all levels of their camera lineup. They should never be in a situation where a camera is replaced by something worse.

 

On the lens side Nikon still has no AF-S 135mm prime, there is no modern fisheye for FX (circular or full frame), lots of people are asking for a longer PF lens, and so on. They can do so much to change user perception of their brand and products, and show who is the boss.

[RaymondC]

If I was interested in such a camera I would have gotten a F6. I now shoot film and it's predominantly medium format. I hope to get a used Fuji XT-1 for casual use. Given the size of many dSLRs it's not much different to medium format.

[rossb]

The secret to posting in paragraphs is: Double space between paragraphs and then toss in a couple spaces before the first letter of the new paragraph. I am bringing it up as I go crosseyed trying to read a book report of information without a space once in a while. It looks like this.

 

 

Blah Blah Blah

 

New paragraph. Blah blah blah.

[Andrew Garrard]

The secret to posting in paragraphs is: Double space between paragraphs and then toss in a couple spaces before the first letter of the new paragraph. I am bringing it up as I go crosseyed trying to read a book report of information without a space once in a while. It looks like this.

 

 

Blah Blah Blah

 

New paragraph. Blah blah blah.

 

Wait, that works?

 

Really?<br />

<br />

Nope, didn't think so. It goes away when the page refreshes - it's only on the first version of the page you (and nobody else) see, which is <strike>a bug</strike> an oddity of the system. Always hit reload to see what'll actually appear.<br />

<br />

If you insert <br /> a couple of times, you'll get a (double) line break (which is how I always used to do it in the old forum, because editing raw HTML was always easier than fighting the editor). It probably doesn't matter to type <br> instead, I just use the longer version to be XHTML compliant. I believe you can also use actual paragraph breaks:<p>

(...which are written <p>, or </p> if you want to be strict about ending a paragraph as well as starting one).<br />

<br />

By the way, if anyone cares for the purposes of spreading the word, < gets you a < and > gets you a > (and & gets you an & if the editor might get confused). Isn't HTML fun?

Edited March 6, 2017 by Andrew Garrard

[rossb]

Never mind. My post was jumbled together.. It goes away when it refreshes like you said.

 

 

....

[RaymondC]

Thanks for that. Yeah it refreshes and goes back without space.

[rossb]

I will just keep my posts limited to 3 lines. I talk to much anyway.

[Dieter Schaefer]

On the AF-E lens compatibility question, I don't believe there are extra pins in the mount to enable electronic aperture, are there?

No, there aren't. Though when I looked I realized that newer Nikon lenses (G as well as E) have 10 contacts but every current DSLR has only 8. Obviously, Nikon is preparing for something. <br><br>

not the atrocity of a pentamirror

Still recall the shock I got looking through that tunnel-view finder in the D70. But I doubt most users of the consumer-level Nikon DSLR realize that the finder is a pentamirror and not a pentaprism. Whether or not a low-end no-frills FX camera body at around $1200 makes sense is for Nikon to decide.

[FPapp]

However back to the problem is Nikon is interested in increasing their profit margin and an F7 most likely would not sell very well.

 

Instead of spending money on R&D to develop the F7, how about an updated F6? Perhaps a F6S!

[rossb]

Instead of spending money on R&D to develop the F7, how about an updated F6? Perhaps a F6S!

 

 

Maybe. I have no idea if a big 35mm camera would sell. Somebody at the beginning said the F6 is out of production.