p.10 #1 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
I am betting that no one can tell by looking which camera system was used to make each image.
Given that, the pertinent issue becomes which system gives the photographer the most satisfying shooting experience. This is a very personal thing, and no right or wrong choice exists. Even on a personal level it seems mood plays a part as evedenced by your use of 3 systems. All frequently if not equally used.
This is a discussion for a why I enjoy shooting with x,y,or z, system. Which I believe would be a much more positive thread than these business and technology orientated threads. It is when these two discussions get mixed together that people get personally offended and upset.
A business and technology thread really should be a dispassionate discussion of wbat is happening in these areas. They should Not be seen as attacks on others choice of brands and equipment, or a defense of these in response. Unfortunatly given human nature these types of discussions have a proclivity to get mixed.
p.10 #2 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
1bwana1 wrote:
For the record, I am not questioning the durability of DSLR cameras. They have proven both robust and repairable if issues do develop over the long term.
I have not seen any evidence that milc is less durable than DSLR however. If you have some, I would like to see it. There is the theory often expressed in the industry that since mirrorless has fewer moving parts, including all the mechanics involved in managing the mirror and associated exposure and focusing components, they will last longer and need less maintenance. In fact some shoot primarily in electronic shutter mode so don't even wear out the shutter.
Here is just one of many examples of this theory.
Titled "Why the mirror has to go":
"The mirror and phase-based autofocus system make camera design more complex, with additional optical and mechanical challenges and need for precise calibration between the various parts. It also increases the risk of mechanical failure "
I agree that mirrorless being newer we don't have as much evidence in the real World to make a claim that mirrorless is even more durable than DSLR. But it does seem possible, and even likely.
p.10 #4 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
1bwana1 wrote:
I am betting that no one can tell by looking which camera system was used to make each image.
Given that, the pertinent issue becomes which system gives the photographer the most satisfying shooting experience. This is a very personal thing, and no right or wrong choice exists. Even on a personal level it seems mood plays a part as evedenced by your use of 3 systems. All frequently if not equally used.
This is a discussion for a why I enjoy shooting with x,y,or z, system. Which I believe would be a much more positive thread than these business and technology orientated threads. It is when these two discussions get mixed together that people get personally offended and upset.
A business and technology thread really should be a dispassionate discussion of wbat is happening in these areas. They should Not be seen as attacks on others choice of brands and equipment, or a defense of these in response. Unfortunatly given human nature these types of discussions have a proclivity to get mixed....Show more →
exactly..
so why do you continue to hype one tech. over another? 🤔
p.10 #5 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
tntcorp wrote:
basic design tenet!
more electrical circuit = more power = more heat = more noise. and excess heat degrades electronics.
the r5 is a good example.
Complete nonsense. Think about it, look around you. The World is full of examples in almost every product category where the replacement of mechanical components with electronic and digital components has resulted in more capabilities, reliability, durability, lower maintenance and longevity. Even more so in complex system like cameras.
Beyond those benefits, a large reduction in moving parts almost always results in lower maintenance, durability, and longevity in products. Now that is a basic design tenant.
Oh, and by the way, The whole mirror system requires both more mechanical and electronic parts and sensors than a mirrorless system does. Look at the diagrams in the article I linked to previously.Your position fails on the basis of your own arguments.
p.10 #10 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
Lance B wrote:
It seems to me the interest in Nikon's future and well being is inveresely proportionate to the amount of gear you own. So, the more Nikon gear you own, the less the concern or the less you push the line of impending doom and the less Nikon gear you have the more fervent the desire...
Imho... Those with LOTS of Nikon gear are (usually) more concerned about impending doom (Your words... Not mine).
That is why we have already seen some comments on the FM Forum from Nikon Shooters who are concerned about the 'declining' value of their Nikon F-Mount Lenses (*Such as the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR Lens).
--
This of course, is because, it would obviously take a lot more Time, Energy and Financial $$$ to replace a 'Complete' Nikon System...
Instead of just a mere, few Camera Bodies and Lenses.
--
Less equipment, actually means greater flexibility and 'LESS' worry or concern...
If one should ever decide and/or need to change Camera Systems or even switch over to Mirrorless from DSLR (within the same Ecosystem).
~~ “The Less You Have, The Less You Have To Be Worried About.” ~~
p.10 #13 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
well you may think so but you'd be wrong. what you don't know fills volumes as i at times. i do trip and fall at times. you on the other hand just continue on about really nothing. instead of the business end try the creative end. it is just so much more pleasant.
p.10 #14 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
OwlsEyes wrote:
... As I have stated before, it would be great if Fred had a "Photo News" thread (oh wait he does!)... or a "Photo Industry" thread and people were to post things like this there. Rather than inflaming some, initiating a backlash of defensiveness, or inspiring frustration, a thread like this might be discussed in a measured way.
If this thread was about the state of the Photography Industry (on a whole), such as the latest
Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) Sales Data... I of course would have posted it elsewhere.
--
However, because the original video was ONLY addressing 'Nikon'... It was posted in the Nikon Forum.
If this bothers you so much, you of course can always ask Fred to move it for you.
Did you ever think of that?
--
It of course, is not my fault... If it puts some people (like yourself) on the defensive. Like the expression says... "Grow some skin!"
Nikon is only a Camera Manufacturer. "Nothing More and Nothing Less."
If you 'think' that Nikon Corp. is perfect or above (or beyond) reproach...
Then 'perhaps' it is time for you to put down your rose colored glasses?
p.10 #15 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
he's just a poor reference tool attempt to use. unless you like to handle a lightning rod in a thunderstorm. if you really want to demonstrate how bad things are in the industry you chose a great example of what happens in the world of so called "influencers" and human ego and its failing, that's about all.
p.10 #16 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
brian_sp wrote:
that is rubbish...most people that wanted the higher frame rate went with aftermarket grips, so if there is a poor contact with these grips you are going to blame nikon for it?
Some had issues even with the 1st party grips. It wasn't nearly as common as with 3rd party grips, but it was there. Even 1st party grips are known to have occasional issues with contact (I have an MB-D10 right now that has issues with this and is a 1st party grip. Not for a D850 of course, but they do happen) Batteries were also an issue, but overwhelmingly with the 3rd party batteries
I'm not blaming Nikon either, just noting that people did blame Nikon for it and it's a reputational issue for them.
p.10 #17 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
Financially the state of the big three camera companies presents an interesting picture. It is a study in contrast between
2 companies heavily invested in cameras, and one that is not.
Canon's current stock price is around $16.37 with a 1 year consensus target of $13.33.
Nikon's stock is at about $7.07 with 1 year target of $6.76
Sony is at $77.48 with a 1 year target of $100.55
Looking at the last 5 years,
Both Canon and Nikon will be setting new lows if they perform as expected.
Sony will be setting new highs.
The question this presents to us as consumers of high end ICL cameras is which position is likely to benefit us the most.
I can see arguments both ways.
Is it best to invest in equipment from financially stressed companies that are very dependant on the camera market and long histories in it. Will these companies therefore likely focus on photographic development because it is essential to their survival to have the most competitive products in the market. It is the old back against the wall argument.
Or
Is it best to invest in a financially strong company, with a hugely profitable sensor division (that they say operates without special benefit to the camera division)? Will such a company with little history in the camera industry work and focus as hard as the back against the wall companies? Will a profit at all costs company like Sony make huge investments in a deeply troubled industry like dedicated cameras? A division that is largely irrelevant to corporate profits even in the best of times. Really, why would they bother.
I will add however that Sony sees itself as a media and content company. It wants to dominate both the creation, distribution, and ownership of media content. This may mean a commitment to cameras larger than the financials would otherwise suggest.
Or
Despite the large deltas in financial and motivational situations, all the companies are strong enough to survive and compete as independent entities. All will continue to create competent, and competitive products with differences really just around the edges. Each appealing to its own user base based on person preferences of the users.
p.10 #18 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
1bwana1 wrote:
... Will such a company work and focus as hard as the back against the wall companies?
Will a profit at all costs company like Sony make huge investments in a deeply troubled industry like dedicated cameras? A division that is largely irrelevant to corporate profits even in the best of times...
p.10 #20 · NIKON NEWS -- Worse than I thought (*NOT my words).
This is a gear forum of a photography site. Gear is very much connected to companies, and their finances.
No you don't have to hear about this every Month or ever again. Just don't read these types of threads, and more importantly post in them. The title will usually warn you of the topic....
