mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #18 · Hogan's article - The DSLR cash cow is alive for how long? | |
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Oh spare me. Mr. Sour Grapes Hogan. Many photographers, myself included, still like to use DSLR cameras. We like optical viewfinders. We like being able to take thousands of photos without having to carry a bag of batteries. Now, Nikon has launched one that offers most of the video advantages of a mirrorless body except the EVF. I couldn't be happier. Once I have the necessary monies, I'll buy it without trying. That the D750 is x dollars cheaper is not interesting. the D750 cannot do what the D780 can. It's a simple as that. If you want or need a pickup truck, you don't buy a Prius even if it's cheaper....Show more →
That also includes Hogan, whose primary body remains the D850
His point is that the makers are facing a volume issue and if they want to reverse the volume decline they need to do better than 'solid but not compelling' on body updates. Quite simply most photographers have a body that meets their needs today and the new bodies don't bring a compelling reason to update to the table.
Is the D780 better than the D750? Yes. No doubt about that even despite a couple bits of decontenting.
For the typical D750 shooter does the D780 bring any compelling reason to upgrade to it? Nope. If you're a video guy, sure, but the Z6 is a better video body than the D780 for less money.
Is the LV better? yeah, and LV AF is miles better. But if you have a D750 and are a stills shooter primarily you have no real compelling reason to buy a new D780 (and if you're buying into the system, the huge price difference between the two more than offsets the mild improvements of the D780)
If Nikon wants to move bodies, their new bodies need to give the buyer a compelling reason to buy them over their current bodies. And today, the only current FX body that can really say that over its predecessors is the D850, and it's been around long enough that most of the upgraders already have.
What Nikon (and everbody else) needs to bring to the table is either wildly more bang for the buck, or innovation that solves actual user issues. Just solid iterations of current product won't do it and we've seen neither of the former two from any of the major brands in a while. Sony delivered teh first with their Mark III A7's and the original A9, but the A9II and A7RIV are just iteration. Canon's done nothing but iterate mildly since the 5DmII, Nikon delivered with the D850 and D500 a few years ago, but everything else since the D4/D800 era has been mild iterations.
So Nikon. You want me to buy new?
Solve problems I actually have. Everything in the D780 except LVAF solves a problem you already solved, just a bit better than the previous solution.
Deliver a better workflow, because the current one SUCKS. Make getting images to my Instagram/Flickr/500px/website easy, give me a real mobile workflow so I can shoot->Edit->post/print on the go. And don't try and do it with some crappy walled garden platform because you don't have the resources to make that platform competitive, nor do I want to buy some expensive and large dongle for stuff that should be built-in (WT-7A anyone?)
Give me the capability to do the things my Pixel can do in my D/Z body. How about real multishot capabilities. Focus stacking, synthetic ND, multishot HDR to RAW with comparable performance to Google Camera, high-res multishot, debayer multishot, etc...
How about an in-camera API and app platform (Sony tried this, but never really released the API's and used a walled garden to get apps in). Let me load the features I want, but make them seamless to use (unlike Sony's in-camera apps). Let me combine features in ways you didn't expect (inc-camera workflow scripts would be cool and useful)
Let me run the camera off USB power, not just charge from it. heck, how about an external USB-C based EN-EL15 charger.
Change the game. because it's game changers that will sell cameras. Iteration worked from 1999-2012 or so because the iterations were generally big and real problems were being solved, sensors were improving in huge jumps and so was processing. But a D800 is still a competent and competitive camera today, as is a D4 or a D7100 or even the much-maligned D600. Are today's cameras better/faster? Sure they are, but it's incrementally so, not revolutionary. And those bodies are all 2-3 generations old and many of their users aren't even looking at a new body. Give them a reason to by solving problems those bodies don't.
|
