Despite those dislikes, I still use Nikon cameras (D610 now). Canon would be nicer for ML, but that does not work well on 6D yet and I dislike Canon handling and lower DR in low ISO of Canon sensors.
Mirrorless is not better yet in AF-C (though I like my wife's Sony a6000 with kit lens for being very small package and good image quality and acceptable handling).
VinnieJ wrote:
Definitely a dislike. While they are making money from camera sales their net income continues to decline year after year. Plus their projections for 2015 are less than 2014. I have to assume it will turn around but it's also possible a conglomerate like Samsung buys out whatever valuable IP they have.
All conjecture of course, all we can do is wait and see.
Right... The facts that:
- they are profitable and have been for years,
- they have tens of millions of people owning their lenses, most of them happy with their camera performance,
- they manufacture by a pretty wide margin the best bodies in the world and have some of the best lenses with more in the pipe to close the minuscule gap existing with they only real competitor...
- they have releases products with all the technologies they would need to win in the mirrorless segment as well,
- they have contracts with multiple sensor manufacturers, all able to produce sensors superior to those of their only true competitor.
Do you factor in those facts when you write that Nikon is "unfortunately" on the verge of bankrupcy?
Cameras are about creating images and I don't know any serious image creatir having migrated away from Nikon these years. On the contrary I know many people shooting Canon having either switched/added a D800/D810/added a a7r. That says everything. The rest is just attempts to sugar coat the reality of how badly Canon has been unable to serve the needs of their faithful customers.
Nikon is far from perfect but they have done the most important thing much better, which is to provide tools for demanding photographers to produce the best possible image quality. I don't think that should increase their odds to go bankcrupt any time soon. It takes years to translate technological leadership into market advantage, but the word is clearly out "the best cameras are Nikons". I'd rather be in that position looking into the long term.
I dislike nikon colors more than Fuji, Sony, or Canon. I think Nikon files without much processing look way to warm, green yellow and digital. I find all that glass/sensor combo--mino, sony carl zeiss, fuji or canon--to have much better rending.
I really wish Zeiss would further work with companies to release af lenses, like the Sony's or the Tuits. Nikon also feels like a canon clone with glass, just not quite as good.
But the bodies--sensors, af, ergonmics, rich uncompressed raw files, and build--are fabulous. I really like Nikon has so many ff options and the new budget 1.8 series lenses. Plus, they have a pretty impressive FF lens selection too. And you can trust Nikon--I can't really trust Sony A or E mount, and Fuji to some extent like Nikon or Canon.
It would be lovely to see Nikon get serious about mirror less--release a couple fixed lens cameras like a RX1 or Fuji X100s. They need to be a little bit more adventurous generally I think. I really like they made the 58 1.4, despite the debate surrounding it. I think it's positive for each manufacture to have distinctive/exclusive lenses to draw shooters.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I dislike nikon colors more than Fuji, Sony, or Canon. I think Nikon files without much processing look way to warm, green yellow and digital. I find all that glass/sensor combo--mino, sony carl zeiss, fuji or canon--to have much better rending.
Out of curiosity how do you process your raw files?
I am getting very pleasant colors from C1 Pro 8 and Capture NX-D for the D810 with the native phase profiles. Iridient developer is worth a try to if you are on OSX.
bernardl wrote:
Out of curiosity how do you process your raw files?
I am getting very pleasant colors from C1 Pro 8 and Capture NX-D for the D810 with the native phase profiles. Iridient developer is worth a try to if you are on OSX.
Adobe converters pretty much suck for .nef IMHO.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeah, I use adobe as I use LR5 for workflow. I found did well with Sony and Canon files. I did use irident for Fuji files, and that did better for color and detail I found, but seemed liked the files got nosier too--not sure if this is true or not.
Having said that, I shoot jpeg very infrequently, but when I do, I dislike Nikon's color palate most. But nikon JPEGs are good quality, and I really like their black and white, even more than Fuji.
I think Nikon files without much processing look way to warm, green yellow and digital.
This was true maybe 8 years ago, but if you're still struggling with Nikon colors in 2014, the problem lies somewhere in your workflow. It is just not fair that some of you people continue to sing the old tune. Time's have changed and most RAW converters including LR5 do a very good job with Nikon files at default values.
Nikon ergonomics are designed in such a way that you're not supposed to consult your menus too often. I don't know about others, but I rarely go into menus. If you find yourself going into menus too often perhaps the problem lies with the fact that you need to get acquainted with Nikon's ergonomics.
bgbs wrote:
This was true maybe 8 years ago, but if you're still struggling with Nikon colors in 2014, the problem lies somewhere in your workflow. It is just not fair that some of you people continue to sing the old tune. Time's have changed and most RAW converters including LR5 do a very good job with Nikon files at default values.
I owned a D7000 and I thought that was too yellow/green, and that was less than 8 years ago. But if you'd like better documentation from a more recent camera here you go on a D800:
"Where oversaturation is most problematic is on Caucasian skin tones, as it's very easy for these "memory colors" to be seen as too bright, too pink, too yellow, etc...White was also shifted slightly toward green at a few ISOs despite using custom white balance, which explains the greenish cast in some of our images."
All cameras shift colors somewhat. Anyway, colors are subjective as far as taste. I am not struggling with them, I just don't like the default. Thankfully Nikon files are malleable and I can shift color, it's just much nicer when the files need less work. Anyway, LR5 isn't a workflow issue. Colors are subjective. I am sure Nikon has technically good color as do other manufactures, I just don't like the signature.
You could trying being constructive such as giving a suggest for different raw converters as others have done, not getting so defensive as you did about ergonomics and color. It's opinion.
I am working on custom settings in LR for my d750 and right now I am fighting those cast issues - it took me a long time to get profiles and settings that fit my d700 and D3 perfectly, but I am struggling to get my d750 files to look the same - because of those cast issues.
bernardl wrote:
Right... The facts that:
- they are profitable and have been for years,
- they have tens of millions of people owning their lenses, most of them happy with their camera performance,
- they manufacture by a pretty wide margin the best bodies in the world and have some of the best lenses with more in the pipe to close the minuscule gap existing with they only real competitor...
- they have releases products with all the technologies they would need to win in the mirrorless segment as well,
- they have contracts with multiple sensor manufacturers, all able to produce sensors superior to those of their only true competitor.
Do you factor in those facts when you write that Nikon is "unfortunately" on the verge of bankrupcy?
Cameras are about creating images and I don't know any serious image creatir having migrated away from Nikon these years. On the contrary I know many people shooting Canon having either switched/added a D800/D810/added a a7r. That says everything. The rest is just attempts to sugar coat the reality of how badly Canon has been unable to serve the needs of their faithful customers.
Nikon is far from perfect but they have done the most important thing much better, which is to provide tools for demanding photographers to produce the best possible image quality. I don't think that should increase their odds to go bankcrupt any time soon. It takes years to translate technological leadership into market advantage, but the word is clearly out "the best cameras are Nikons". I'd rather be in that position looking into the long term.
If you want to debate about this I can but don't confuse your opinion with actual facts. Only your first and last point are actual facts and can be proven.
I never said they were on the verge of bankruptcy, I actually said I was going to assume they would turn things around. Their profits are going in the opposite direction the last few years like many others in the imaging business. That is a fact, they post their financial statements online.
As for "serious image creator having migrated away from Nikon these years", look up Scott Kelby and Bob Krist. I'm sure there are plenty others that have switch to and from Nikon. To be honest the motives of these shooters for switching can be debated and the point about people switching is really irrelevant to the conversation.
"The rest is just attempts to sugar coat the reality of how badly Canon has been unable to serve the needs of their faithful customers."
Speaking of serving the needs of "their faithful customers", do some research about the Nikon D600 fiasco and Nikon covering it up with the D610. It was only until the lawsuits started coming in did they start doing the right thing with fixing people's D600. Also look up Nikon and "impact damage". Is this how other camera companies should treat their loyal customers?
"but the word is clearly out "the best cameras are Nikons"
Market share would unfortunately disagree with your opinion here. Nikon is not the leader in DSLR or mirrorless sales and they are one of the smallest companies competing in the segment. Consolidation in the market will occur and rarely do the small companies survive when it happens.
Let me conclude this by saying I am a Nikon shooter. I'm not here to defend Canon or any other brand and would profit from Nikon being successful.
I loves my 36 mp of seemingly endless dynamic range. For wildlife photography this means, among other things, that I can all but forget about actually metering anything in the field. Sort of exposed correctly is now always good enough: no more blown highlights, no more buried shadows. That's huge.
I've generally been happy with Nikon. I have a lot of glass, have had several of their bodies and now have a high end slr as well as a nikon 1. I have never had a problem with anything I've ever had from nikon so I guess I'm lucky. I find their products to be well made with good ergonomics and performance. Expensive--sure, but so is the competition. They do seem to make marketing mistakes when they try to balance features vs price sometimes, but overall my experience has probably been better than most. If I had to go through some of the problems people faced with a couple of their bodies I might feel differently, and it sounds like they could improve customer service...but I'm sticking with the system.
