Low Budget Dave: I don't even understand how camera companies are able to lose money. The markup is huge, and they come out with new products every 20 days or so.
Canon and Nikon make a pretty reliable profit even in a down market, but everyone else breaks even. I don't get it. It costs them a couple of hundred dollars to make a product that they are selling for a thousand.
Where is all the money going? Those commercials with Ashton Kutcher must cost a lot more than I thought.
Note: It is about the sensor quality(one thing of total quality and after lenses), at any size, that really matters. It's just easier to obtain light quality, on bigger sensors. It's a balance; I know.
They say go smaller (less than m43 for example) to "make" it affordable, like that can be the ONLY way to reduce costs. It is only *their* preferred way. It is more profit for less camera. If we would collectively raise the bar(education), then the larger ones (perhaps APS-C, or FF for one balanced example) would in fact be affordable! Why? Because we are massive! Their profits would still be sky high, even when reduced. It's your choice.
Who says that (wafer costs and expenses); but camera industries, and their propaganda campaign believers?
They point out multiples of tiny sensors are exponentially less expensive (per area), than the relatively much bigger sensors per round wafer. They are getting away with excessive profits on relatively poor performing tiny sensors. It is no real limit to stellar profit on larger sensors, nor any reason to kill some good affordability. It's profit only.
They want you to believe a company couldn’t survive with somewhat lesser larger sensor profits, and the numbers say differently. The truth is, they are pumping the uninitiated masses; because that pays better, and you buy it. My only issue with a company doing that, is it's corrupt to fail quality, with miscellaneous often non-photographic technical feature distractions, and short lived products, with artificially inflated prices.
Neodp: Do not rest on your laurels. Sure, we could use tricks to coax-out a stellar good enough picture, like in brighter more controlled light, for some limited goals. Given a choice though, a camera that gathers light better (color sensitivity, little noise and more range, and at a higher ISOs) is better at producing far better results and doing it significantly more consistently. The fact that a camera does not function without the person does not change the need for improving cameras. It matters. This is the cameras (manufactures) job.
Why shouldn't the irritating soap manufactures go out of business in favor of low-cost higher-quality products? You can still find high priced soap; if that makes you happy. You can also find very high quality soap; but extremely inexpensively. These are all mass produced products! Tech is usually mass production, as well. Why wouldn’t the buyer be the dominate cause of this? You are the buyer. If you let them lower that "good enough bar" and set it to years gone by, and then also raise our prices artificially, then you will get your collective buying choices, and that is all.
Sorry if this is not "sound bite", and requires some attention span.
Therefore, the question isn't about over-expectations, and being realistic. It's squarely about real quality, vs ignorance, and excuses. Does that offend you? Why should it? Remember, I think cameras are far overpriced, and there is no real justification for it. Current prices reality do not change that; but you can.
Some people do not keep their personal hygiene on the clean side either, and will say it's "good enough"(at some distance). Their good right to choose it does not mean they can't ignorantly abuse it. The problem is real, irrespective to perspective. Even a product we assume is as simple as "soap" is a very special, delicately balanced (manufactured) formula. That's actually required so as not irritate people and get the job done completely, with less to do. What's wrong with better quality soap(such as specific and very long-lasting shave soap), and lower prices for it?
"Luck" is extremely reduced and you can create more purposeful art; starting from your mind. Not just the other way around. Otherwise it's simply pushing the button to catalog what you are pointing at(and failing more often). Moreover, even if you are missing only 25% (said conservatively) of what you could have captured, as "good enough" but then decide to wisely delete them, due to your own definition of insufficient quality, that didn't meet your goals (and target goals can greatly increase in your future) then you will never enjoy those particular shots, that time has then lost forever. You can't see the shots you couldn't capture. Some shots can not be repeated. You can not access the Raw files that were deleted, or never captured; due to your cameras lack of overall quality. Also, this DOES affect the over-quality of your keepers/portfolio. There is no question about that.
Do not rest on your laurels. Sure, we could use tricks to coax-out a stellar good enough picture, like in brighter more controlled light, for some limited goals. Given a choice though, a camera that gathers light better (color sensitivity, little noise and more range, and at a higher ISOs) is better at producing far better results and doing it significantly more consistently. The fact that a camera does not function without the person does not change the need for improving cameras. It matters. This is the cameras (manufactures) job.
Neodp: No it's ALL our fault. It's our fault every time we give-in and buy a camera with poor light gathering ability, unbalanced, missing, basic photographic benefits, and at far over inflated prices.
Nikon (alone) has lowered their projection to over 8 MILLION lens [ALONE]. Plus 6 million bodies or kits. Since we are all so versed in how much we can find these things and at that minimum price, learn to add!
No really, add-up (multiply) their MINIMUM gross sales from those numbers. All you need to do that, is there. Just figure the average system camera price that you know, and use the least price. You know it will be far more; but figure conservatively, to be fair.
Now tell me how the poor manufactures can't get it together enough to cover their expenses. I'm telling you.... they are waiting on us to demand real camera quality, comprehensive state-of-the-art benefits and at a reasonable price.
We are LETTING them sell crappy sensors/lens, and unfinished cameras; because they can.
Oh you guys totally missed it. They know exactly what they are doing. They are making cameras that will be outdated, just so you will buy another and sooner. They make far more greedy profit on smaller sensors, that do not do what a camera is supposed to do, in the first place. That's Gather light. It's not just noise it's color sensitivity.
Yes, there is a point of "good enough"; but in many metrics we have not passed that yet. m43 is not yet better, and has a long way to go. Comparing it to past cameras, and concluding it is therefore good enough(better), is false. You wind up with "good enough" crappy in real world situations. Understanding that is not just "pixel peeping" or being unrealistic.
When did we decide camera's are done and can't improve (photographically). Why are you OK with photographic stagnation, and disposable products? Who really decides what they make; but the buyer. That's you.
Are we to pay them and expect them not to provide a better camera?
Neodp: ...and you still believe there is such a good application for a camera this big? Plus, that the better benefits can't be in a D5300, or smaller sized camera? Have you heard of parts being made smaller? I'm not saying it needs to be any less than the same full-frame sensor, or that a pocket camera works well with a lens the size of a telescope. I'm saying it's filter-down and out of whack with size, price, and reality.
No. M43 doesn't have the answer yet, and neither does Sony's awkward cameras, with all their FF (and some APS-C) goodness; but what we are ever so missing, are these known and existing, good photographic benefits, COMBINED into an affordable, more mobile, total system.
Just because better *DOES* bring a better price (I get it) does not explain the ridiculous price differences. How many times better is $4000 compared to $400 folks? Yes! Details matter big; but how many times more expensive do you really believe these cameras are to manufacture? You've been snowed. Under!
If you don't see the D4 has massive negatives then I guess you are not being reasonable. Quality does not need to be that big, or that price, no matter what your needs are. You are certainly welcome to disagree. I understand, it also can't be too small, and retain quality; based on today’s offerings. But I was suggesting small full frame cameras, and lenses. The FF fixed lens RX1 shows us the size, like a system with a 35mm focal length lens could be.
lacikuss: What is Mr. Olympus going to do when Full frame dslr becomes small and cheap?
it is happening already...
Yeah; but not everything isn't about price, on the other hand.
There is great value in more than one camera; but not when it's because the things that can be combined are not.
Ironically, the very same argument you use for the truly smaller m43 system fails with certain longer lenses, when all things are equal (and they never are), and after it becomes a certain size. Meaning big, and a little bigger becomes a non issue. Where these camera shine is with smaller faster primes. Then these can also be applied to APS-C sized systems to make them small; but not as small. That doesn't matter to some, as it's with rare exception, that either system camera beats a true pocket camera in its carry size.
The best pocket cameras still suck for anything less than great lighting and other photo challenges. Which means: You never see the pictures [an uncomfortable percentage] that you can't get; even with it ready in your pocket.
These total issues need a solution and affordability.
OK. You know that major down-turn in camera sales, that we are experiencing. We are waiting. Make a better camera.
1. Small cameras have been made with APS-C sensors. It's been done. We've just not been offered the total package, yet. Yes. M43 sensors may get better; but so will (some not all) APS-C sensors. FF also, and with slightly more size limit; but FF can also still be made small(ish). Produced cameras already prove this.
2. The areas of improvement need to be the EVF speed, Focus tracking, and optimized lens choices. Moreover, no photographic blindside (benefit) needs to be conveniently left-out (no jello video, flash power and commander) of the total camera balance. Including a low price!
...and you still believe there is such a good application for a camera this big? Plus, that the better benefits can't be in a D5300, or smaller sized camera? Have you heard of parts being made smaller? I'm not saying it needs to be any less than the same full-frame sensor, or that a pocket camera works well with a lens the size of a telescope. I'm saying it's filter-down and out of whack with size, price, and reality.
lenseye: The IQ of cameras of the last 2 to 3 years is sufficiently good enough that you don't have to upgrade every year anymore. We're way past the point where each new model improves markedly over the previous models to a point that it becomes a must have.
Why not make the new model introduction cycle longer and pay more attention to debugging and improving the firmware? Improve the lens or reduce the noise further as opposed to cramming in features that no one ever uses.
No! As much as I hate buying something only to see it depreciate; because a new model comes out that's twice as good, and half the cost, it does NOT mean we should slow down camera progress.
It's completely insane, that we are not seeing new photographic benefits (completely) COMBINED into newer and better state-of-the-art cameras more often. The industry to busy selling selling smaller and worse sensors that only make them more profit. So much so, that they fix one thing and first adopters go crazy falling all over themselves to buy it. Just so they can try it, and brag. They have test charts to shoot! No matter it's over 10 times overpriced and missing the necessary foundation of many basic and real photographic benefits. Oh! The camera companies have all that, it's already proved. They're just never in the same damn camera! It's a shell game and you're playing it. Perhaps we should turn them in. Perhaps they should do their JOB, and MAKE A BETTER CAMERA.
No it's ALL our fault. It's our fault every time we give-in and buy a camera with poor light gathering ability, unbalanced, missing, basic photographic benefits, and at far over inflated prices.
Oh yeah. There was that little comment about smaller, crapper sensors making good enough image quality, and I'm thinking is that your job? Making worse cameras? I'm telling ya. These people are waiting for us to say stop cutting corners on the sensor! THAT is not where you cut your "components".
It's simple. They will continue to make higher profits on crappers cameras until we stop buying them. Let's not praise only the newness, gadgets, non-photographic benefits. Let's get better lenses AND better sensors, in a total benefit balanced(speeds, sizes, controls, video quality, PRICED/VALUE) camera. Please.
Plus, mirrrorless is on it's way only when EVF's beats OVF's. Get the speeds up. That makes for smaller cameras, and better video.
Valiant Thor: Who the hell cut their hair? I'll never be able to look at my Nikon the same anymore.
LOL. Same person who thought they should make cameras for girls!
Seriously, I respect their difficulties understanding what we want (and will buy). Plus, I think they are gracious to give the interview in the first place.
Here's to more honorable products!
Donnie G: The mirrorless fans have really had a fun time bashing these Nikon execs for not giving away any future product development plans. So have some frustrated Nikon fans who are tired of waiting for the mythical D400. What if the D400 does arrive shortly, dressed in a mirrorless pro grade DX format body and sporting a killer EVF inside the traditionally placed viewfinder hump on the top of the camera body? Would mirrorless fans finally shut up and be happy? Would the Nikon faithful accept the new camera as the answer to their pro DX prayers? My best guess answer to both questions; PROBABLY NOT! Now you know why the Nikon execs have frizzy hair. :)
BS the opposite is true. They sound like they are heading down a bigger camera path because the N1 system failed. That just stupid. That camera failed because it has an inferior sensor, at any size. All other things are actually good; but that kills it.
So, make a better mirrorless camera than Sony, and make it smaller. Make a better, faster EVF, and tend to the video AND stills. F the D400. F the GPS. F the the funky colors.
Oh please. I'm working with an old Nikon DSLR only because of it's price per image quality. Not because of it's bigger size! I am WAITING on Nikon to make something better than the N1 series. One with no-jello video, and manual control.
Make a mirrorless D610 (and D7100) and stop cheaping-out on the sensor. We can tell! Make a smaller camera with all that, and....
Fast refresh side mount EVF-only rangfinder-like (smaller) system and lenses. Like the effort you did on the wrong N1 system.
APS-C improved, would work also; but you might as well go full frame. Sony did.
Mike Toy: Reading the review of the D5300 it appears that the camera does not adjust changes in aperture if you shoot manually in Live View mode. At least not until you take a shot.
Can anyone tell me (perhaps someone that has this camera) what happens when you use Live View in Shutter Priority mode? The review is a little grey here and you could be forgiven for thinking that you can't actually use it - if the camera lacks a separate aperture motor how does it then compensate for changes in light when in SP mode?
The D3100 does it, as does the D800 so surely I am reading this the wrong way?
Not to mention, they desperately need to make an open specification, for user groups reprogramming, and customization of the camera, before they get left behind.
The motor is for focus, not aperture. An "AF" (AF-D) lens will set exposure, including aperture, on a non-motor D40 to D5300 body. Just not focus. Now that AF-S lenses probably offer what you need, and are the best value in all lenses, it's only an issue with not having AF with the fine old "AF" lenses. That, and it puts you with G lenses. Those have no manual aperture ring, requiring clumsy menu setting, of pro manual work.
Nikon really should make a D610 type camera, the size of a D5300, or smaller. Smaller motor included. After all, this is 2014. This would answer the size question, with mirror-less.
Nikon desperately needs to do two things. Fix rolling shutter, and manual control with HD video, on their better still photo centric DSLR's, *and* they need to develop a better full frame mirror-less system, with an adapter, for F-Mount lens owners. That absolutely must include better, faster, bigger EVF only, and phase detect beating AF-C tracking improvement.
Neodp: The f/0.95 only would realize its light gathering prowess if onto a superior comparable sensor (better DR, tonal, color sensitivity), no matter its size. Micro 4/3 is not there yet. It's too much a compromise. A non-compromising lens is no match. Then, there's less 3D looking bokeh blur, and its quality. Meaning, you should understand, the Bokeh is similar to f/1.8 on larger sensors. Not f/0.95. Not light I say; but the Bokeh. Which is not an F-Stop measure; but looks different depending on the crop factor at the same F-Stop, due to your relative focal angle vs. distances (you place your 25mm m43 where a 50mm FF would be for the same angle.) Composing that same angle, puts you into more DOF range, and that's less Bokeh in the [actual] differing mm of the different sized systems. The actual mm focal length does not change.
An equivalent focal mm is not the same as an actual focal length mm, in all of its photographic qualities.
Not understanding the toy aspect is what is no basis for a "serious discussion". I do understand that’s the opposite of what they want you to see, and the f/0.95 idea they are selling.
So you are saying this is the best video lens? OK.... Hmmmm .... and that’s before we get to the price.