Say hello to Nikon's "White Devil" ?

Ron Parr · Sep 18, 2001

Mike M said:
This may very well be the first sign that Nikon is desperate. With
Sony owning the digicam marketplace, and Canon firing yet another
improvement to their G1 line with the G2, they must be really
hurting.

How do I know this? Well, look at the LCD. It's just like
Canon's. The first sign that a market leader like Canon is
sweating is when they take a market tact that looks like their
direct competition. Instead of innovating, they follow the Canon.
Feel free to disagree, but from a marketing perspective, Nikon's
decision is very disturbing.

I guess I don't see where you're going with this. Are you suggesting it's better to have a, "not invented here," outlook and not explore different options?

I think it's a sign that Nikon is responding to the marketplace. It's good for Nikon and it's for consumers.

Ron Parr

Dave fnjbliil · Sep 18, 2001

Peter G said:
I agree. Its been quite a while since Nikon released a compelling
product.

I would agree with this statement. Unless this camera just has knock you off your feet pics, it does little to win me to it. It lacks pizzaz.

Peter G said:
I see desperation in the pre-announcement nature of this news.
These are early beta cameras, no pictures even allowed. No
close-ups of the case even. It will be a long time before this
thing hits the shelf and Nikon is trying to say: "Look were not
dead yet, we have new product...".
Even if it were out today I would not be impressed.

I don't think it has anything that really makes you say wow. And I was hoping it would so to provide greater choices int the 4-5 mp cameras.

Peter G said:
I think a G2 or 707 would be a better choice.

Absolutely.

All of course imho

Dave

Peter G said:
Peter

Mike M said:

How do I know this? Well, look at the LCD. It's just like
Canon's. The first sign that a market leader like Canon is
sweating is when they take a market tact that looks like their
direct competition. Instead of innovating, they follow the Canon.
Feel free to disagree, but from a marketing perspective, Nikon's
decision is very disturbing.

hehe said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.asp

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2001/e5000.htm

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/10/40-en.htm

Sony's "Dark Angel" vs Nikon "White Devil" ?

Who's going to win?

I am putting my $$$ on Nikon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ivo34672 · Sep 18, 2001

Posters Profile: hehe
E-mail: [email protected]
Total posts: 1 (avg. 1 messages/week)
Joined: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 (10 hrs)

Trip, trap...

dgrogers · Sep 18, 2001

Don Cooper said:
So when Microsoft ripped off the Mac icons for Windows 95 they were
desperate and about to fail?

Contrary to popular belief, Apple did NOT invent the GUI (or Mac icons if you're not familiar with the term "Graphical User Interface").

The Coolpix 5000 has to be the ugliest camera I've ever seen.

Ron Parr · Sep 18, 2001

And so it begins...

For the record, Apple did indeed copy most the original Mac UI ideas from Xerox, but (amazingly) it was done with Xerox's tacit approval.

There is a difference between copying with permission and copying without permission.

Also, AFAIK, Apple did not try to rewrite history. They don't deny the Xerox connection. Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular, actually claim that some of these ideas originated at Microsoft. What's noteworthy about this is that it's not merely a confusion about an obscure historical point, but an outright fabrication that is contrary to widely known facts.

Ron Parr

dgrogers said:
Don Cooper said:

So when Microsoft ripped off the Mac icons for Windows 95 they were
desperate and about to fail?

Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, Apple did NOT invent the GUI (or Mac
icons if you're not familiar with the term "Graphical User
Interface").

The Coolpix 5000 has to be the ugliest camera I've ever seen.

DanT · Sep 18, 2001

john demastrie said:
Nikon has loaded almost all of it all in this one. Just one big
problem, a significant lack of zoom maxxed out at a paltry 85mm mm
is a joke.This camera's features will be almost useless without add
on lenses. Fortunately Nikon has plenty of good offerings in that
area.The 28 mm is nice but what percentage of images are taken that
wide?

28mm is a very common focal length for many landscape, outdoor as well as indoor applications. Sometimes it adds drama and other times it is down right necessary (as when you run out of room to backup for a shot). Many prefer even wilder (thus the desirability of a 16-35 zoom in interchangeable lenses). An add-on tele-converter is usually less of an optical compromise than converting a lens to wilder angle. Nikon, in this case, seems to know exactly what they are doing in configuring a serious-amateur/semipro camera.

johnd1 said:
I don't think anyone who ever owned a camera with a decent zoom
range on it would begin to consider this one. It sure don't look
like it will be cutting into the 707 from Sony. JD

Ron Parr said:

1. Does it have a pre-flash that actually works for redeye
reduction, or is just a pointless tiny, blinking light as it was
has been on many previous CoolPix units?

2. Can it focus in low light?

My other concern is that the zoom range starts at 28mm, which is
great for landscapes (if the distortion isn't too bad) but it only
goes up 85mm, which is just barely adequate for portraits.

I'm excited about the aspherical lens.

Ron Parr

hehe said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.asp

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2001/e5000.htm

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/10/40-en.htm

Sony's "Dark Angel" vs Nikon "White Devil" ?

Who's going to win?

I am putting my $$$ on Nikon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

frank26328 · Sep 18, 2001

I'm glad they changed the screen design as well, despite the fact that it's basically a copy of the Canon G1/G2. I own a Coolpix 950, but found the swivel screen of my friend's G1 to be even more useful. I thought that the coolpix had better "Feel" though (it seems like all of Nikon's equipment does to me) Also, there were other limitations on most digicams that prevented me from upgrading from the 950, namely speed of operation. If the Coolpix 5000 is a substantial upgrade in this respect, I'll be the first to buy!

frank

herbet said:
Tim said:

I haven't used the flip out style or the swivel, like on the 707
yet. It seems to me that the flip-out display makes more sense.
It'd be handy to be able flip out all the way around, and I like
how the screen is protected when you're not using the camera. Since
it looks like I'll be getting a 707 though, I'm sure I'll be quite
satisfied with the swivel design. Who knows, maybe I'll even like
it better when I get a chance to try it.

Mike M said:

How do I know this? Well, look at the LCD. It's just like
Canon's. The first sign that a market leader like Canon is
sweating is when they take a market tact that looks like their
direct competition. Instead of innovating, they follow the Canon.
Feel free to disagree, but from a marketing perspective, Nikon's
decision is very disturbing.

hehe said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.asp

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2001/e5000.htm

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/10/40-en.htm

Sony's "Dark Angel" vs Nikon "White Devil" ?

Who's going to win?

I am putting my $$$ on Nikon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

KCTrio · Sep 18, 2001

I'm not going anywhere with this, I'm simply making an observation and inviting discussion. Some of the philosophical basis of my thoughts comes from the Michael Porter school of marketing. Not that I'm totally sold on Porter, his ideas have merit, and they apply quite well to the digicam market. Let me explain...

From a marketing standpoint, Nikon is clearly a quality/high-end market leader. Companies in this group, for most industries, are market innovators. There are many different marketing strategies in the digicam marketplace--low cost, high-tech (Sony), traditional camera/quality/innovator (Nikon). There are also companies that have a blended strategy, like Canon. People associate Canon with both camera manufacturing and high-tech manufacturing. I don't necessarily think that this is a bad position to be in, it's just different from Nikon's. Nikon's digicam offerings have the following differentiating characteristics:

1) quality lens;
2) numerous SLR-like controls;
3) Compatibility with Nikon accessories.

Plus, their split-body design was clearly a unique characteristic that the market identified with Nikon. So, Canon comes out with their competitive answer to Nikon's 900 series of cameras with the G1. That camera had a different solution to the split-body design...a flip-out-and-twist LCD. When Canon came out with the G1, it one-upped the Nikon in many ways. Now you can disagree whether it was better than the 900 series or not, but that's not the point. Nikon is still thought of in the mind of the consumer as a quality camera manufacturer that is also a leader in the digicam market. Companies that have a strategy like Nikon's aren't trying to become the market leader in terms of most cameras sold, they simply want to lead in their niche.

Now, Nikon's answer to the 990 was the 995, while Canon's answer was the G2. Now Nikon announces a new camera with a flip-out-and-twist LCD, a feature that the market (digicam market, not camcorders) associates with Canon. Now, we find Nikon in a position of changing their product design to look more like the Canon series. What's their brand identity? Any time a company pulls a move like this, its a clear sign that they are losing sight of their strategy and scrambling for a new one.

As I said in my previous post, you may feel free to disagree. This is simply my opinon.

Ron Parr said:
Mike M said:

This may very well be the first sign that Nikon is desperate. With
Sony owning the digicam marketplace, and Canon firing yet another
improvement to their G1 line with the G2, they must be really
hurting.

How do I know this? Well, look at the LCD. It's just like
Canon's. The first sign that a market leader like Canon is
sweating is when they take a market tact that looks like their
direct competition. Instead of innovating, they follow the Canon.
Feel free to disagree, but from a marketing perspective, Nikon's
decision is very disturbing.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see where you're going with this. Are you
suggesting it's better to have a, "not invented here," outlook and
not explore different options?

I think it's a sign that Nikon is responding to the marketplace.
It's good for Nikon and it's for consumers.

Ron Parr

Malaha · Sep 18, 2001

I thought that the 885 was a very nice compact camera. The best that I have seen.

I agree on the prosumer grade though. This is the only Nikon that I would seriously consider in primary camera class (for not being a professional).

Peter G said:
I see desperation in the pre-announcement nature of this news.
These are early beta cameras, no pictures even allowed. No
close-ups of the case even. It will be a long time before this
thing hits the shelf and Nikon is trying to say: "Look were not
dead yet, we have new product...".
Even if it were out today I would not be impressed.

I think a G2 or 707 would be a better choice.

Peter

Mike M said:

How do I know this? Well, look at the LCD. It's just like
Canon's. The first sign that a market leader like Canon is
sweating is when they take a market tact that looks like their
direct competition. Instead of innovating, they follow the Canon.
Feel free to disagree, but from a marketing perspective, Nikon's
decision is very disturbing.

hehe said:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.asp

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2001/e5000.htm

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/10/40-en.htm

Sony's "Dark Angel" vs Nikon "White Devil" ?

Who's going to win?

I am putting my $$$ on Nikon

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Malaha · Sep 18, 2001

Personally,

This does not change my mind on the 707. It still is better for my needs:

1. I take a lot of indoor shots with poor light.
2. Brighter lens.
3. Sony's cool focusing feature.

4. I take a lot of close up pictures of my scrambling son. I need the extra zoom.

5. I like that you can get a complete line of high quality equipment to go with Sony stuff - laptop, dye sub printer, camcorder, etc. It is selling out to Sony a bit, but they do make good stuff. Their laptop (SR33) is very cool and also VERY cheap.
6. The SLR like grip of the 707 is nice.

Obviously, I wish that Sony had not tried to invent their own storage medium and used CF or even SM, but, oh well, you cannot have everything.

Matt

hehe said:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091802nikoncp5000.asp

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2001/e5000.htm

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/News/10/40-en.htm

Sony's "Dark Angel" vs Nikon "White Devil" ?

Who's going to win?

I am putting my $$$ on Nikon

KCTrio · Sep 18, 2001

Since when does one example to the contrary make for a healthy critique of an observation that I've made? If I asserted this to be a truism, correct in ALL cases, your example might force me to hedge my opinion. But since I feel that in this marketplace, it is a sign of desperation on Nikon's part, your example does not serve to prove or disprove anything regarding my observations.

Also, you'll note that I stated that it was a sign of desperation. You added the words "about to fail" to the discussion. I never said that people that copy ideas from others is a sign of imminent failure. Indeed, you might easily find examples to the contrary (i.e., the company succeeds).

Don Cooper said:
Mike M said:

This may very well be the first sign that Nikon is desperate.

Click to expand...

Bobby Kansara · Sep 18, 2001

I'd rather buy a Nikon if it were equal to a Sony. That being said, my impressions are as follows:

(1) Nikon's lens is slower (f2.8 v. f2.0)
Edge: Sony

(2) Nikon's zoom is weaker (85mm equivalent vs. 190mm equivalent)
Edge: Sony

(3) Sony's battery tells you how much time you have remaining. Nikon's doesn't.
Edge: Sony

(4) Both cameras have mediocre macro capability (0.8 inches) compared to the CP995 (which I'm NOT going to buy ever!)
Edge: Tie

(5) F707 looks weird to most, but is an elegant design. The Nikon is smaller but uglier (IMHO). Size matters and looks don't often count.
Edge: Nikon

(6) Compactflash v. Memorystick...
Edge: Nikon

(7) Picture Quality: TBA
Edge: we'll see

(8) Cost. What difference is $100 if you're spending $1000? But then again, you have to pay extra to get an AC charger. But then again (again!) you pay more for memory sticks.
Edge: Tie

Thus, if I were picking today without looking at picture quality. I'd still buy the Sony even though I have a very slight pro-Nikon bias. The Sony just looks better on paper. But ask any NHL Stanley Cup playoff fan how much it's worth to be better on paper. Picture quality is really the bottom line isn't it? I'm going to wait and see which pictures look better and then decide.

Frank C. · Sep 18, 2001

Bobby Kansara said:
I'd rather buy a Nikon if it were equal to a Sony. That being
said, my impressions are as follows:

(1) Nikon's lens is slower (f2.8 v. f2.0)
Edge: Sony

f2.8? that's at 28mm equivalent my friend!

Bobby Kansara said:
(2) Nikon's zoom is weaker (85mm equivalent vs. 190mm equivalent)
Edge: Sony

look for some high quality telefoto lens to hit the market....=)

Bobby Kansara said:
(3) Sony's battery tells you how much time you have remaining.
Nikon's doesn't.
Edge: Sony

who cares.. carry spares with ya!

Bobby Kansara said:
(4) Both cameras have mediocre macro capability (0.8 inches)
compared to the CP995 (which I'm NOT going to buy ever!)
Edge: Tie

F707 has noticeable edge distortions and weird CA while using
wide angle macro...still no word on the 5000.

Bobby Kansara said:
(5) F707 looks weird to most, but is an elegant design. The Nikon
is smaller but uglier (IMHO). Size matters and looks don't often
count.
Edge: Nikon

the 5000 is one sexy camera!

Bobby Kansara said:
(6) Compactflash v. Memorystick...
Edge: Nikon

doesn't make a difference to me.

Bobby Kansara said:
(7) Picture Quality: TBA
Edge: we'll see

yep- we'll see ( fingers crossed tho ).

Bobby Kansara said:
(8) Cost. What difference is $100 if you're spending $1000? But
then again, you have to pay extra to get an AC charger. But then
again (again!) you pay more for memory sticks.
Edge: Tie

the market will decide the street price. The Nikons may not
come down as much as Sonys.

Ivo34672 · Sep 18, 2001

Frank C. said:
Bobby Kansara said:

(1) Nikon's lens is slower (f2.8 v. f2.0)
Edge: Sony

Click to expand...

f2.8? that's at 28mm equivalent my friend!

... and f3.5 @ 38mm...

Ron Parr · Sep 18, 2001

Certainly brand identity is important, but I don't see any reason for them to strangle themselves with it.

I think we should keep in mind that this is just Nikon's latest camera. We don't know what else they have planned or where they're going overall.

The coolpix design is bascially derivative from the Sharp Viewcam style of camcorder, while the Canon design is basically derivative from just about every other style of camcorder with an LCD. People do have preferences and Nikon is trying to capture some of the market for people who prefer the flip-out style.

It seems like it would be shame for them to ignore this part of the market and focus entirely on a design that some people despise just for the sake of brand identity.

Just my $0.02...

Ron

Dan Clark · Sep 18, 2001

Of course this shouldn't be confused with the fact that Apple ripped off the Xerox PARC icons. Remember, the original "windows" interface was developed by Xerox, not Apple or Microsoft. Unfortunately being the first to market a product doesn't guarantee success.

Regards,

Dan.

Don Cooper said:
Mike M said:

This may very well be the first sign that Nikon is desperate.

Click to expand...

Frank C. · Sep 18, 2001

Ivo said:
Frank C. said:

Bobby Kansara said:

(1) Nikon's lens is slower (f2.8 v. f2.0)
Edge: Sony

Click to expand...

f2.8? that's at 28mm equivalent my friend!

Click to expand...

... and f3.5 @ 38mm...

yeah, that's disappointing a bit but think of all the pictures
you'll be able to get now ( with the 28mm ) that you
were never capable of getting with 38mm. Nikon had to
make some compromises to get it down to 28mm.
Of course a F2.0-F3.5 28mm-84mm lens is a possibility,
but it would have put the 5000 in the SLR league
price wise. I luv that wideangle + 5M ccd combo tho'. =)

Let's wait for Phil's review.

KCTrio · Sep 18, 2001

Ron:

Brand identity is EVERYTHING. It is the end result of all company efforts...from product design, technology, software, features, advertisements. And yes, it's Nikon's latest camera. We can clearly see that this is a flagship camera designed to supercede the 900 series. If not, there worse off than I thought. It's a 3x zoom,

And as far as the LCD coming from the camcorder market, consumers don't necessarily know this or care. Suffice it to say that the design features is strongly associated with the G1 in the digicam market.

Ron Parr said:
Certainly brand identity is important, but I don't see any reason
for them to strangle themselves with it.

I think we should keep in mind that this is just Nikon's latest
camera. We don't know what else they have planned or where they're
going overall.

The coolpix design is bascially derivative from the Sharp Viewcam
style of camcorder, while the Canon design is basically derivative
from just about every other style of camcorder with an LCD. People
do have preferences and Nikon is trying to capture some of the
market for people who prefer the flip-out style.

It seems like it would be shame for them to ignore this part of the
market and focus entirely on a design that some people despise just
for the sake of brand identity.

Just my $0.02...

Ron

DaShiv · Sep 18, 2001

Actually I don't think it'll be prohibitively expensive, but having a faster lens will mean losing the backwards compatibility with current Nikon Coolpix add-ons... so they sacrificed some speed to reward people for brand loyalty (and for less/lighter glass inside, possibly to cut costs).

DaShiv

Frank C. said:
Ivo said:

Frank C. said:

Bobby Kansara said:

(1) Nikon's lens is slower (f2.8 v. f2.0)
Edge: Sony

Click to expand...

f2.8? that's at 28mm equivalent my friend!

Click to expand...

... and f3.5 @ 38mm...

Click to expand...

yeah, that's disappointing a bit but think of all the pictures
you'll be able to get now ( with the 28mm ) that you
were never capable of getting with 38mm. Nikon had to
make some compromises to get it down to 28mm.
Of course a F2.0-F3.5 28mm-84mm lens is a possibility,
but it would have put the 5000 in the SLR league
price wise. I luv that wideangle + 5M ccd combo tho'. =)

Let's wait for Phil's review.

Ron Parr · Sep 18, 2001

Well, I guess I would say that making good and desirable products is more important than making distinctive ones. Subaru and Saab, for example, make distinctive products with cult appeal but they aren't huge sellers.

I guess I don't follow the reasoning about the flagship thing. I agree that this is likely their new flagship (if you forced me to bet on it). You're saying that if it's not their flagship product then they're worse off? Why is this? This would imply that having something even better in the pipeline ready to come out in a few months, e.g., a $15K long zoom camera, would be bad for them. I'm having trouble seeing how this would be bad.

I think that Nikon's real brand identity is their reputation for quality optics and professional SLRs. IMO, the most important thing for them is to get people to believe that they are getting a solid professional (whatever that means) product. I think that things like a metal body are ultimately much more important to their image than a controversial swivel design.

Ron Parr

Mike M said:
Brand identity is EVERYTHING. It is the end result of all company
efforts...from product design, technology, software, features,
advertisements. And yes, it's Nikon's latest camera. We can
clearly see that this is a flagship camera designed to supercede
the 900 series. If not, there worse off than I thought. It's a 3x
zoom,
Olympus, Canon, Sony, Minolta, Toshiba, Panasonic, everyone.

And as far as the LCD coming from the camcorder market, consumers
don't necessarily know this or care. Suffice it to say that the
design features is strongly associated with the G1 in the digicam
market.

Ron Parr said:

Certainly brand identity is important, but I don't see any reason
for them to strangle themselves with it.

I think we should keep in mind that this is just Nikon's latest
camera. We don't know what else they have planned or where they're
going overall.

The coolpix design is bascially derivative from the Sharp Viewcam
style of camcorder, while the Canon design is basically derivative
from just about every other style of camcorder with an LCD. People
do have preferences and Nikon is trying to capture some of the
market for people who prefer the flip-out style.

It seems like it would be shame for them to ignore this part of the
market and focus entirely on a design that some people despise just
for the sake of brand identity.

Just my $0.02...

Ron

Click to expand...

Say hello to Nikon's "White Devil" ?

Ron Parr

Guest

Active member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Ron Parr

Guest

Member

Member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Frank C.

Guest

Senior Member

Ron Parr

Guest

Senior Member

Frank C.

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Ron Parr

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts