Hogan responds to unhappy Nikon photographers

[david nix]

Interesting and insightful comments by Thom on the Nikon culture and how it is affecting Nikon's financial bottom line. It appears that, unlike some of the other camera companies, Nikon marches to its own drummer and not the Nikon customer. What do you think? Continuing to use my D300.
David Nix

 

[mmmmmmmm]

I am kinda new to the Nikon forum, although I have been using Nikon stuff for years and years-Fuji S5, now the D700!

It seems that just when a new piece of equipment shows up, people are wanting the new "x" version of the same camera, just knowing that this new piece of photographic equipment will make them a great photographer. ITS NOT THE CAMERA, STUPID, its the photographer! I think most nikon users would be happier if they could use what they have, not what isn't even designed yet.

I did not like the D200, of which I have owned two. And yet, some photographers really liked the camera. I love my new D700 and I have done nice wedding and portrait work with it.

the only piece of nikon equipment that has been a problem has been the SB900 of which I own four. It does not work well as an outdoor fill in bright sunlight. I get about 15 pops before it overheats. I have even turned off the heat tetecting device so that it won't shut down at a key time during a wedding.

My nikon lenses are tack sharp and I won't be tgrading them for the laster versiion.
My 85mm1.4 couldn't be any better.

Lets learn to use what we have before worrying about the next new camera or flash.
Respectfully,
David Miller

 

[photonut2008]

I did not like the D200, of which I have owned two. And yet, some photographers really liked the camera.

What if someone told you to stop whining about the D200, and that it is good enough? After all, a D700 isn't going to make you a better photographer, right?

Sorry, but your argument is based on two fallacies:

1. What is good enough for you is good enough for everyone else.
2. A camera that is better in some way than the one you are using cannot produce better images.

You're own experiences (as described in your post) are at direct odds with those fallacious arguments.
--
Anthony Beach

 

[String]

What I get a laugh about is when the D3, D300, D700 came out everyone was jumping on the Nikon bandwagon. Finaly Nikon had a product that not just met the competition, but leaped over them. And like wow, Canon (and Sony) came back with a product that now matches (?) the Nikons and all these same people are whining that they are switching to (insert brand of the month here) because Nikon doesnt have a "better" camera.

Guess what? They will and then what will you do, switch back again? Consumerism at its finest...

--
http://stringfellow.smugmug.com

 

[sambr]

I am kinda new to the Nikon forum, although I have been using Nikon stuff for years and years-Fuji S5, now the D700!

It seems that just when a new piece of equipment shows up, people are wanting the new "x" version of the same camera, just knowing that this new piece of photographic equipment will make them a great photographer. ITS NOT THE CAMERA, STUPID, its the photographer! I think most nikon users would be happier if they could use what they have, not what isn't even designed yet.

I did not like the D200, of which I have owned two. And yet, some photographers really liked the camera. I love my new D700 and I have done nice wedding and portrait work with it.

the only piece of nikon equipment that has been a problem has been the SB900 of which I own four. It does not work well as an outdoor fill in bright sunlight. I get about 15 pops before it overheats. I have even turned off the heat tetecting device so that it won't shut down at a key time during a wedding.

My nikon lenses are tack sharp and I won't be tgrading them for the laster versiion.
My 85mm1.4 couldn't be any better.

Lets learn to use what we have before worrying about the next new camera or flash.
Respectfully,
David Miller

Amen David, I agree with you 100% including the part about the D200 - I still own one, but it's not my favorite.

 

[photonut2008]

Guess what? They will and then what will you do, switch back again? Consumerism at its finest...

Perhaps, but I am not myself switching. After much delay in Nikon coming out with something to match the Sony a900, I finally decided to get the a850 the first day B&H had them for sale. My logic is fairly straightforward, I can shoot today with the a850 and my future options are now hedged because I will have my feet in both systems.

Having handled the a850 now for just a few hours though, I would say this to anyone contemplating selling their Nikon gear and switching to Sony -- don't. If you are comfortable with Nikon's ergonomics and its files (as I am), then you will find Sony distinctly uncomfortable on both counts. Nonetheless, for me I believe this will be a good choice, just not one I would easily recommend to others.
--
Anthony Beach

 

[RicAllan]

I did not like the D200, of which I have owned two. And yet, some photographers really liked the camera.

What if someone told you to stop whining about the D200, and that it is good enough? After all, a D700 isn't going to make you a better photographer, right?

Sorry, but your argument is based on two fallacies:

1. What is good enough for you is good enough for everyone else.
2. A camera that is better in some way than the one you are using cannot produce better images.

You're own experiences (as described in your post) are at direct odds with those fallacious arguments.
--
Anthony Beach

--

Could be wrong but I took the point as panning those who just knows a newer unit (as yet unreleased AND USED by them) would be better and is what they need rather than making comparisons of models that HAVE been produced and that they found differences with because they had been used by the person speaking...
Ric

 

[Mel]

"but it's obvious it delivers more resolution than Nikon's 12 MP DSLRs do,"

If it is that obvious (assuming at smaller sizes since you don't mention that you are comparing large prints of both cameras) I would love to see some of your 850 samples when you get a chance. Especially compared to the D300 you have already used.

Thanks in advance!
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

 

[Mel]

So far, the only Nikon camera anyone else has matched is the D300. If even that has taken place?

The D3/D700/D3X are all unmatched as yet. All with DX crop mode, superior image quality and dual card slots for two.

I hate to keep sounding like a fanboy, but these are the facts, not hype. The only reason to keep mentioning such things in counter is because statements keep being made like this where someone says Sony and Canon have equalled or matched Nikon offerings. Say the facts! They have a better pricing presentation for their models. But this doesn't make a model better.
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

 

[mjskier]

"but it's obvious it delivers more resolution than Nikon's 12 MP DSLRs do,"

If it is that obvious (assuming at smaller sizes since you don't mention that you are comparing large prints of both cameras) I would love to see some of your 850 samples when you get a chance. Especially compared to the D300 you have already used.

dpreview review of the D700 shows the difference between D700 and A900 (which has the same sensor as the A850) From their sample it seems pretty obvious to me that a 24MP sensor does indeed give you a higher degree of details than a 12MP sensor (as it should)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD700/page24.asp

That level of details might be important to some, but of course you pay the price in at least 2 areas: High ISO performance, and computer resource. I had a major problem going from a D70 to a D300: Everything took longer: Uploading images, processing them... And then the problem of storage came up. I had to buy larger disks, both on my main machine, and on my backup NAS. That kind of upgrade isn't something I'll do again soon. But for what I shoot right bow (indoor volleyball) high ISO is the most important factor, so my next purchase is most likely a D700.

So any of you abandoning the Nikon ship, if you have a lightly used D700, talk to me on your way out

 

[Mel]

Thanks mjskier,

I see Phil still gives the color advantage to the D700. But yes, as expected, the resolution is there.

I couldn't see it between the D3 and 1DsMKIII, but hopefully I will have my D3X soon to be able to see side by side comparisons myself for real world images/usage.
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

 

[Apollo18]

The persistent whining really pathetic. Like the sky is falling because some incremental advance didnt arive already yesterday.

It seems like only six months ago that Nikon cameras were excellent, now apparently, they are rubbish. What a load of hogwash! I wish they would switch to Sony already (where they will discover that there is more to a camera than MP) and put all their lenses on ebay for me to snap up.

Anyway, if you think its bad now, consider this: popular wisdom holds it will be another 2 years before a D4 and/or a D400 are released. The D700 replacement, which would logically have the D4 sensor, wont arrive until some time after that!

It's only going to get worse.

I am kinda new to the Nikon forum, although I have been using Nikon stuff for years and years-Fuji S5, now the D700!

It seems that just when a new piece of equipment shows up, people are wanting the new "x" version of the same camera, just knowing that this new piece of photographic equipment will make them a great photographer. ITS NOT THE CAMERA, STUPID, its the photographer! I think most nikon users would be happier if they could use what they have, not what isn't even designed yet.

I did not like the D200, of which I have owned two. And yet, some photographers really liked the camera. I love my new D700 and I have done nice wedding and portrait work with it.

the only piece of nikon equipment that has been a problem has been the SB900 of which I own four. It does not work well as an outdoor fill in bright sunlight. I get about 15 pops before it overheats. I have even turned off the heat tetecting device so that it won't shut down at a key time during a wedding.

My nikon lenses are tack sharp and I won't be tgrading them for the laster versiion.
My 85mm1.4 couldn't be any better.

Lets learn to use what we have before worrying about the next new camera or flash.
Respectfully,
David Miller

Amen David, I agree with you 100% including the part about the D200 - I still own one, but it's not my favorite.

--
My photos:
http://nickburton.smugmug.com/

 

[Doug Pitts]

--

...I continue to use my D300, D700 and D3 completely satisfied. I do the work at hand, and the gear does not let me or my clients down....I guess I'm just not a whiner.

 

[Thom Hogan]

dpreview review of the D700 shows the difference between D700 and A900 (which has the same sensor as the A850) From their sample it seems pretty obvious to me that a 24MP sensor does indeed give you a higher degree of details than a 12MP sensor (as it should)

So it's your contention that the differences between those samples are all due to the sensor?

--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (21 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

 

[photonut2008]

So far, the only Nikon camera anyone else has matched is the D300. If even that has taken place?

Remains to be seen, but one thing's for sure, the 7D does have more resolution.

The D3/D700/D3X are all unmatched as yet. All with DX crop mode, superior image quality and dual card slots for two.

You ignore what is missing from Nikon's line-up, and that's an affordable 24 MP DSLR -- it isn't enough to say "we got one, it's just more expensive." The fact is, the D3x is prohibitively expensive and leaves a gaping hole in Nikon's line-up, a hole that Nikon may or may not fill [I would say the hole doesn't get filled if Nikon comes out with a "D700x" and then prices it ludicrously high].
--
Anthony Beach

 

[ScottMac]

So far, the only Nikon camera anyone else has matched is the D300. If even that has taken place?

Remains to be seen, but one thing's for sure, the 7D does have more resolution.

The D3/D700/D3X are all unmatched as yet. All with DX crop mode, superior image quality and dual card slots for two.

You ignore what is missing from Nikon's line-up, and that's an affordable 24 MP DSLR -- it isn't enough to say "we got one, it's just more expensive." The fact is, the D3x is prohibitively expensive and leaves a gaping hole in Nikon's line-up, a hole that Nikon may or may not fill [I would say the hole doesn't get filled if Nikon comes out with a "D700x" and then prices it ludicrously high].
--
Anthony Beach

I agree, except for one thing. Let me ask you, if Nikon suddenly releases a D700X with the exact same 24MP sensor as the D3X and it also has HD video, do you think anyone in their right mind would even consider buying a D3X at $8,000?

You see, this is the overriding reason why there is no D700X and why the D700X is likely not coming at all. It will be a totally different camera than the D3X, that is, if it comes at all.

 

[stephenmelvin]

Twice in the past day I've seen threads with the title, "Hogan says this or that." Unless you're in the military, it's generally considered rude to just call somebody by their last name.

Seems weird, considering what a valuable resource Thom Hogan is.

 

[dominikov]

I agree, except for one thing. Let me ask you, if Nikon suddenly releases a D700X with the exact same 24MP sensor as the D3X and it also has HD video, do you think anyone in their right mind would even consider buying a D3X at $8,000?

You see, this is the overriding reason why there is no D700X and why the D700X is likely not coming at all. It will be a totally different camera than the D3X, that is, if it comes at all.

Scott, that's a fair argument but use the same logic with the D3 and D700.

Nikon knows it's going to sell more volume by offering the best features of their pro model in a more affordable, semi-pro body and Canon's 5Dmk2 and Sony's a850/a900 have changed the high res game too much for Nikon to sit back and do nothing.

If the D700 was released at the same time with the D3, how many potential D3 buyers would have bought a D700 instead knowing the image quality is identical? The 100% VF, 2 card slots, 300K rated shutter, and 9 vs. 8 fps with a grip might not have justified the higher cost for them unless they were working as PJ/sports photographers.

The D3 still sold (even to those who only needed a semi-pro version) because Nikon waited until the middle of last year to release the D700.

I'm anticipating they'll do the same with the D700x. Give the D3x a year or so on the market before releasing a more affordable model in early 2010 (i.e. D700x). By that stage in the development cycle, they'll be planning for a D4x with 30mp+ in 2011-2012.

 

[raminolta]

Honestly, to me you don't sound like a fanboy; you are indeed a fanboy.

Though I think it is legitimate to think and want cameras with improvements in image quality, design and technological advances, the equipment obsession that has afflicted many photography forums does not seem doing any good to anyone. I switched from KM 7D to D300 mainly due to its highly advanced AF system, to find out that to my surprise, the new camera isn't been up to my taste in other aspects. I find 7D was superior in ergonomics and user interface even though D300 has its pluses too. It just looks like D300 has put a tediously long learning curve ahead of me. Of course, this is subjective but we are all here to hear subjective opinions. Interestingly, I haven't found D300's metering and flash exposure system superior to 7D. Noise performance is better but hey, there is a lot more to image quality than just noise.

I am not writing to bash Nikon system. Nikon system is overall as good as other systems with some advantages and disadvantages that are mainly subjective. Everybody may go around and try different camera systems and choose the one that suits him properly. I find it funny when fanboys think their system is better than the rest. Personally, I would switch back to Sony (Minolta) if they implement a modern AF system similar to that of D300 in their cameras. I repeat this doesn't mean Nikon system is worse than the Sony system. It's just not what I want in certain aspects that matter to me.

So far, the only Nikon camera anyone else has matched is the D300. If even that has taken place?

The D3/D700/D3X are all unmatched as yet. All with DX crop mode, superior image quality and dual card slots for two.

I hate to keep sounding like a fanboy, but these are the facts, not hype. The only reason to keep mentioning such things in counter is because statements keep being made like this where someone says Sony and Canon have equalled or matched Nikon offerings. Say the facts! They have a better pricing presentation for their models. But this doesn't make a model better.
--
Mel
http://www.mellockhartphotography.zenfolio.com
http://www.mellockhartphotography.net

 

[ccz]

Unfortunately the current situation is as he described.

Considering the size of a company like Nikon, it is not a sweat season at the moment. The layoff in Japan started months ago. I could not understand what was in the news, because it was in Japanese. I heard the name Nikon so I asked my wife to translate for me.

The market share of Nikon kept dropping, no matter what a brilliant D3 or D700 actually it is.

Honestly I was so surprised after I tested the D3x. Because it was not as I expected. Or I should say I was not that impressed.

Instead I am impressed utterly by the Leica’s S2. If people here still believe more pixels on a 35mm can make difference, it is time to look around. If you could not see the difference except the price, then do not bother anymore, happy shooting!