I think Nikon's biggest problem was that they underestimated the market importance of mirrorless and just undercooked the cameras. They just simply targeted the A7II/RII cameras and didn't target beating them and improving them over what they lacked. They caught up, but the technological trend just leap frogged hardcore and I think their main problem is that they're now targeting what they have to, it's just taking them forever to get there because they know their next batch of cameras can't be half assed. 1bwana1 wrote:
"We cannot deny that the Nikon brand has fallen into a long slump recently."
Although I thought I was paraphrasing from memory when I posted it, that is actually a direct quote from Nikon's President Mr. Toshikazu Umatate, in Nikon's latest Annual Report. He also linked optimism for the future prospects of the Imaging division directly to the Z9 release and new lenses. I trust he understands the issues far better than you or me.
I would argue that Nikon's technical gap was clearly exposed with the original release of the Z6/Z7 back in 2018. These cameras were well behind the competition in important areas when released. Since cameras take years to develop the deficit surely existed for some time prior to that. In my view that is not a short time, and clearly more than the few months that your post references. Nikon leadership has explicitly acknowledged this previously. They said that they were late in developing mirrorless technology because they didn't believe in it. They acknowledge that this was a mistake.
Mirrorless technology now accounts for nearly 80% if the camera business revenue. When we focus on that (which is the future), Nikon has fallen from a solid and competitive second place in the industry, to seventh place in mirrorless market share. That cannot be ascribed just to marketing failures. To a large extent it accurately reflects a technology deficit in released products. Markets tend to amplify such deficits. Comparing just to similar issues at Canon doesn't account for the broader market. Canon has made up for this in the last year or so, and now has achieved at least parity in mirrorless in many respects. Some areas they actually probably lead. Assuming a great release in the Z9, In a direct comparison to Canon, Nikon's technology can be said to be trailing by less than a year, and about to be at parity at a minimum.
It should be noted I think that when saying that Nikon lags technically in mirrorless, I am speaking of released products. The sum of currently available cameras and lenses. It is not a statement of a deficit of technical abilities within the company. Nikon has a long history of technical excellence and leadership. That base has not diminished. My posts on the subject have always expressed optimism in this. I continue to expect great things from the Z9 release. I expect that many advances will make their way down to other Nikon mirrorless products. Much of that will hopefully be through free firmware updates to existing products. I believe we are the cusp of functional parity between the big three camera manufactures. Choices will be made on small differences and preferences around the edges of technology and implementations. That will be a great thing.
JadedWriter wrote:
I think Nikon's biggest problem was that they underestimated the market importance of mirrorless and just undercooked the cameras.
I don't know about "undercooking" the recent cameras on account of missing the market importance. By the time the Z cameras were underway, the market importance was crystal clear to everyone, but Nikon just didn't have the tech in-house.
I suspect the bigger problem is the they overestimated the staying power of DLSRs in the years prior. You can hardly blame them - they're an optics company first, and probably had a hard time imagining EVFs that could match good quality optical viewfinders. Even though Nikon had produced mirrorless cameras as early as 2012, they likely didn't imagine such technology could (or should) compete with DSLRs. It took the industrial might of Sony to pull that train forward, and even Sony's early efforts were not great. I don't think mirrorless became a true threat to DSLR until the Sony A9 in 2017 - that was the first time a mirrorless camera could do everything a top-end DSLR competitor could do and more.
Now everyone castigates Nikon (and to a lesser extent, Canon) for not seeing the inevitable ascendancy of mirrorless, but hindsight is 20/20. Now that we are well past the tipping point into mirrorless technology, Canon and Nikon are making up lost ground on Sony which has very much hit its stride - the A1 is truly epic camera. Nikon is the least equipped to respond to - let alone leapfrog - that kind of technological tour-de-force. I suspect this is an area where Canon's scale and in-house fabrication capabilities are a big advantage, but even they don't really have a great answer to Sony's latest front-runner.
All that being said, I also suspect Nikon will weather this storm. It would just be nice to see them not playing catch-up so often.
I think undercooked makes more sense. I don't know how Nikon looked at the A7II and RII looked at the heat they got for not having two card slots and then not even thinking about putting in a proper vertical grip in that camera. They easily knew what existed and how to better them but didn't put enough R&D in them or whatever and churned out the first gens. Canon made the same mistake, but still managed to make vertical grips (no IBIS though). I personally don't care if Nikon leap frogs the A1, but equaling is fine. I don't spec chase, I just want damn good camera. A1 doesn't make me want to plunk down $6500, but if Nikon can equal it with the Z9 that's perfectly fine. I always state Nikon effed up, I'm not going to argue semantics regarding how they effed up. Arka wrote:
I don't know about "undercooking" the recent cameras on account of missing the market importance. By the time the Z cameras were underway, the market importance was crystal clear to everyone, but Nikon just didn't have the tech in-house.
I suspect the bigger problem is the they overestimated the staying power of DLSRs in the years prior. You can hardly blame them - they're an optics company first, and probably had a hard time imagining EVFs that could match good quality optical viewfinders. Even though Nikon had produced mirrorless cameras as early as 2012, they likely didn't imagine such technology could (or should) compete with DSLRs. It took the industrial might of Sony to pull that train forward, and even Sony's early efforts were not great. I don't think mirrorless became a true threat to DSLR until the Sony A9 in 2017 - that was the first time a mirrorless camera could do everything a top-end DSLR competitor could do and more.
Now everyone castigates Nikon (and to a lesser extent, Canon) for not seeing the inevitable ascendancy of mirrorless, but hindsight is 20/20. Now that we are well past the tipping point into mirrorless technology, Canon and Nikon are making up lost ground on Sony which has very much hit its stride - the A1 is truly epic camera. Nikon is the least equipped to respond to - let alone leapfrog - that kind of technological tour-de-force. I suspect this is an area where Canon's scale and in-house fabrication capabilities are a big advantage, but even they don't really have a great answer to Sony's latest front-runner.
All that being said, I also suspect Nikon will weather this storm. It would just be nice to see them not playing catch-up so often. ...Show more →
Yeah, I'll agree with you on most of that. I do tend to think people get too worked up about menu navigation which I find very easy to adapt to. What matters to me when thinking about ergonomics making a meaningful difference in handling is mostly about the grip and maybe some of the button placements. All of the mirrorless brands have been too small gripped for me and I've been super anxious for an R3/Z9 sized camera (although I already quit waiting and bought a GFX 100 which is incredibly fun).
1. The lack of dual card slots was an unforced error, agreed.
2. There was very little chance Nikon would've produced a camera that could equal the A9 in 2017. No one could. It's AF, stacked sensor, and overall performance was a distant target for both Nikon and Canon at that time. Even today, I think there's very little chance that Nikon will make a camera that equals the A1 on performance and versatility. Nikon doesn't have access to that kind of technology (unless it sources sensors from Sony, which it might).
3. I don't know how popular vertical grips really are, or that they are a determinant of camera sales. Speaking personally, hate the damn things and won't ever buy another camera with an integrated vertical grip (I've owned 2).
4. I suspect the fact that you don't want to spend the $6500 on the A1 is one of the reasons why Nikon isn't moving as fast as you'd like. That's not a criticism mind you - if Canon released a $7000 camera that was better than my A1, I wouldn't buy it either unless it represented the kind of technological change whose benefits I could not ignore. The switching costs are just way too high. Setting aside the technological hurdles (which are vast), Nikon must know that if you haven't bought into Sony yet, you probably aren't going to if Nikon can meet Sony most of the way in terms of features. So I think the likelihood of a Nikon camera reaching parity with the A1 is pretty remote, at least for now.
JadedWriter wrote:
I think undercooked makes more sense. I don't know how Nikon looked at the A7II and RII looked at the heat they got for not having two card slots and then not even thinking about putting in a proper vertical grip in that camera. They easily knew what existed and how to better them but didn't put enough R&D in them or whatever and churned out the first gens. Canon made the same mistake, but still managed to make vertical grips (no IBIS though). I personally don't care if Nikon leap frogs the A1, but equaling is fine. I don't spec chase, I just want damn good camera. A1 doesn't make me want to plunk down $6500, but if Nikon can equal it with the Z9 that's perfectly fine. I always state Nikon effed up, I'm not going to argue semantics regarding how they effed up.
Again, comparing the Z6/Z7 to the R/Rp, the Nikons were very clearly ahead on most accounts. There is no denying that. It's a fact as well.
Yes, Nikon was behind Sony but Sony's market share isn't a real threat even today.
What is described as a slump is their drop of marketshare against canon and there is zero relationship between that and technology. It is 99% the result of sales and marketing, most of which is about APS-C, not full frame.
Regarding the ability of Nikon to equal the a1 with the Z9, to me it's a given. The D6 is already equal to the a1 in terms of AF speed and tracking. Nikon claiming that the Z9 will be equipped with a stacked sensor and be superior to the D6 is all we need to know.
Someone in this thread wrote that the readout speed of the Z9 sensor may even be a bit faster than that of the a1. I have no idea whether the information this poster claims to have is accurate or not, but this seems alined with the confidence displayed by Nikon.
Finally, I assume everyone here knows this, but this is the right way to use the AF on the Z6II/Z7II:
The A9 isn't what I'm talking about, nor was I expecting them to make an A9 equivalent. A7III is a different story though. I don't even care if Nikon's first gens had slightly worse AF than the A7III. If Nikon came out the gate with a slightly worse version of the A7III I honestly think they wouldn't have caught the bad press that they got. The A7III at that price point was that much of a game changer. Sony wasn't giving away A9 tech in their sensors any way so Nikon would've had to contract TowerJazz to fabricate something like that. I have an A7RIV and a good amount of GM glass I could easily trade some stuff in and get an A1 if I wanted to. I don't just bird so the need for it isn't the only thing on my mind. A1 ain't going to get me better street photography, portraits or event shots. It would help yes, but I've been able to do a lot of what I do for work with the Z6II and actually like the god dang thing so I'm waiting for Nikon to release a Z mount camera with a more confident AF system. I got into Z mount as just an experiment, which was honestly the same way I got into E mount. If I didn't like the stuff I would've just taken it back to Adorama for a refund, liked it enough to continue investing into it. Regarding vertical grips I shoot portraits for work and I honestly think vertical grips balance out the camera a lot better when you have heavier lenses at the front. The weight balance of the Z6II with the 50 1.2 with a vertical grip and without one are night and day differences to me so I have a grip on basically every camera I own. Some don't like it, fine that's their decision, but I'm not going to act like there's not a benefit to my shooting comfort. Arka wrote:
1. The lack of dual card slots was an unforced error, agreed.
2. There was very little chance Nikon would've produced a camera that could equal the A9 in 2017. No one could. It's AF, stacked sensor, and overall performance was a distant target for both Nikon and Canon at that time. Even today, I think there's very little chance that Nikon will make a camera that equals the A1 on performance and versatility. Nikon doesn't have access to that kind of technology (unless it sources sensors from Sony, which it might).
3. I don't know how popular vertical grips really are, or that they are a determinant of camera sales. Speaking personally, hate the damn things and won't ever buy another camera with an integrated vertical grip (I've owned 2).
4. I suspect the fact that you don't want to spend the $6500 on the A1 is one of the reasons why Nikon isn't moving as fast as you'd like. That's not a criticism mind you - if Canon released a $7000 camera that was better than my A1, I wouldn't buy it either unless it represented the kind of technological change whose benefits I could not ignore. The switching costs are just way too high. Setting aside the technological hurdles (which are vast), Nikon must know that if you haven't bought into Sony yet, you probably aren't going to if Nikon can meet Sony most of the way in terms of features. So I think the likelihood of a Nikon camera reaching parity with the A1 is pretty remote, at least for now.
NR is now saying rumored announcement October 28th (give or take) and a new teaser tomorrow so not much longer to wait hopefully....
I've enjoyed the Z-system generally but have felt like the bodies are a generation or two behind where I'd like them. I'm hoping the Z9 (and tech trickle down) can help get the system to where I'd like it, in particular with better AF performance.
Personally I'm expecting the third gens to get the proper tech trickle down you want, you can't firmware fix everything especially if the EVF refresh rate is a hardware issue. They'll probably do what they can with the second gen AF system and then prioritize the third gen advancements afterwards. tcdeveau wrote:
NR is now saying rumored announcement October 28th (give or take) and a new teaser tomorrow so not much longer to wait hopefully....
I've enjoyed the Z-system generally but have felt like the bodies are a generation or two behind where I'd like them. I'm hoping the Z9 (and tech trickle down) can help get the system to where I'd like it, in particular with better AF performance.
JadedWriter wrote:
Personally I'm expecting the third gens to get the proper tech trickle down you want, you can't firmware fix everything especially if the EVF refresh rate is a hardware issue. They'll probably do what they can with the second gen AF system and then prioritize the third gen advancements afterwards.
Out of curiosity, what does the EVF refresh rate have to do with AF performance?
My understanding is that the sensor AF points read out speed/refresh is all that matters.
The EVF has its own specs and limitation, but the EVF has nothing to do with AF, it is just displaying the sensor output to the photographer.
AF performance nothing, it being more in synch with what's going on in front of you is a different story. I think the 60hz EVF's are a hair slower from what you see in the EVF to what's actually going on in front of you. I know a sports photographer that complains about that all the time on the Z7II, which is why he won't buy one. bernardl wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does the EVF refresh rate have to do with AF performance?
My understanding is that the sensor AF points read out speed/refresh is all that matters.
The EVF has its own specs and limitation, but the EVF has nothing to do with AF, it is just displaying the sensor output to the photographer.
JadedWriter wrote:
AF performance nothing, it being more in synch with what's going on in front of you is a different story. I think the 60hz EVF's are a hair slower from what you see in the EVF to what's actually going on in front of you. I know a sports photographer that complains about that all the time on the Z7II, which is why he won't buy one.
OK, so we agree that Nikon has the potential to improve the AF performance on the Z6II and Z7II regardless of EVF refresh rate, right?
bernardl wrote:
Yes, Nikon was behind Sony but Sony's market share isn't a real threat even today.
Mirrorless is currently almost 80% of camera sales revenue. Sony is number 1 in mirrorless sales in both revenue and units. Canon is second, and Nikon is 7th. How is that not a threat to Nikon.
Nikon used be in second place overall. Sony is now in second, Nikon third. How is that not a threat to Nikon?
bernardl wrote:
Regarding the ability of Nikon to equal the a1 with the Z9, to me it's a given. The D6 is already equal to the a1 in terms of AF speed and tracking. Nikon claiming that the Z9 will be equipped with a stacked sensor and be superior to the D6 is all we need to know.
That's just not true. The A9 and A1 AF systems are a generational advance over even the best DSLR AF, and are a major reason why DSLRs are falling by the wayside.
1. A9 and A1 AF systems operate reliably at much higher frame-rates - 20-30FPS versus 14FPS.
2. PDAF sensors on the Sony (and also Canon) are right on the sensor.
3. On the A1, there are over 1000 sensors, and they cover the entire viewfinder area. Nikon PDAF is on a separate module, has only 100 or so cross-type sensors, and covers far less of the viewfinder area - maybe 60%?
4. Nikon AF declines if you use live view (e.g., for video) because you lose PDAF. This is not an issue with Sony at all, and a pretty minor issue on the Canon 1Dx.
5. The A1 AF is effective even in its more demanding resolution environment - 50MP versus 20MP for the D6.
6. Sony eye-tracking functionality is a true game changer that Nikon DSLR AF cannot replicate.
All of these distinctions lead to significant real world advantages. I have never considered my Nikon DSLRs to be even remotely equal to either my A9 or A1 in the AF department. The Nikon requires some skill (and a little luck) to consistently score keepers. The Sony consistently delivers perfectly focused results with very little effort - I felt like I was cheating when I started using the A9 regularly, and the A1 takes that AF effectiveness and transparency up yet another notch. I don't really even have to think about it anymore - just follow the eyes.
That's where Nikon needs to be. I hope that Nikon doesn't assume as you do that they've already matched the competition with their aging DSLR AF - that is far from being true.
bernardl wrote:
OK, so we agree that Nikon has the potential to improve the AF performance on the Z6II and Z7II regardless of EVF refresh rate, right?
Potential yes. They need to change their approach to be more like Sony Real Time Tracking. It is rumored that they will do just that after the release of the Z9.
I have been calling the release announcement date as the 28th for some time now. This is a slight delay from its originally planed date. Last info I had was that there was still a performance benchmark that had not been worked out. Talk of releasing it anyway. I really hope they don't do that.
My thinking on some of the other stuff is:
The Z9 AF is a blend of the D6 and Real Time Tracking with the 3D focus box of the D6. From all I have heard it is excellent.
The sensor scan speed is slightly faster than the a1, but not significantly so. It will be good bragging rights, but functionally not a big deal.
1bwana1 wrote:
I have been calling the release announcement date as the 28th for some time now. This is a slight delay from its originally planed date. Last info I had was that there was still a performance benchmark that had not been worked out. Talk of releasing it anyway. I really hope they don't do that.
Yes. I was using the refresh rate as an example for something that you can't fix via firmware update. Now how close to the Z9 it gets depends on the processor differences because I highly doubt they just put the same Z6II processors in the Z9. bernardl wrote:
OK, so we agree that Nikon has the potential to improve the AF performance on the Z6II and Z7II regardless of EVF refresh rate, right?
