Nikon finally a change of heart ? Full Frame Nikon is on the table ?

1. thom has permission to promote his stuff
Thom Hogan is exempt from the rules of the forum and has permission to promote his stuff here? Really?
2. he's a photographer
Yes, as are the majority of other folks here - some even more talented.
what where you tread; much like the Greeks believed that to not
show respect for the gods was to seal your fate, the same is true
on this forum with certain "deities"
I trust this is tongue-in-cheek. Thom's just a person with opinions and experiences. Just like everyone else.

--
Garland Cary
 
1. thom has permission to promote his stuff
Thom Hogan is exempt from the rules of the forum and has permission
to promote his stuff here? Really?
Lets be perfectly clear here. Thom never "promotes" his stuff here, he replies to people who have questions about his stuff (which is different). Also, his credentials in his signature or no different from any professional photographer having a link to their webpage (as many do).
2. he's a photographer
Yes, as are the majority of other folks here - some even more
talented.
Perhaps, but few are better informed about Nikon's corporate activities or more versed in the intricacies of Nikon's cameras.
what where you tread; much like the Greeks believed that to not
show respect for the gods was to seal your fate, the same is true
on this forum with certain "deities"
I trust this is tongue-in-cheek. Thom's just a person with opinions
and experiences. Just like everyone else.
Not exactly like everyone else. Almost nobody in these forums has as many credentials or as extensive a background in digital photography (or photography in general for that matter) as does Thom. I for one, give him for more deference than I do 99% of the people in these forums.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/myfavorites
 
Say Ubi, did you have anything to contribute to this discussion?
Thom has lots of credentials and shares his insights and experience
freely in these forums. His bona fides are readily available, lots
of people here own and benefit from his camera guides, and I for
one read everthing he posts. Thom is often critical of Nikon, and
has said some things in the last couple of days that Nikon would
never put out in a press release. You on the other hand, are a
complete stranger to me and your post smacks of Canon troublemaking.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/myfavorites
 
Gosh, Redwood, you are easily inflamed if you found my post to be rabble-rousing. I don't for a moment doubt the veracity of Thom's technical knowledge, whether academic or applied. However, none of that renders him a better photographer than the many talented shooters whose images I've seen posted on this forum. That's not an insult, but a simple observation, which I suspect even Thom, ever graceful, would not dispute. Moreover, despite being an acknowledged pundit on existing Nikon gear and technology, Thom is not particularly privy to Nikon's corporate ambitions and, thus, is simply doing what the rest of us do: speculating about what is to come. His 'predictions' are consistently right about rather obvious things, and as often right as wrong about the tough stuff - no different than the rest of us.
1. thom has permission to promote his stuff
Thom Hogan is exempt from the rules of the forum and has permission
to promote his stuff here? Really?
Lets be perfectly clear here. Thom never "promotes" his stuff
here, he replies to people who have questions about his stuff
(which is different). Also, his credentials in his signature or no
different from any professional photographer having a link to their
webpage (as many do).
This was sarcasm. I know better.
2. he's a photographer
Yes, as are the majority of other folks here - some even more
talented.
Perhaps, but few are better informed about Nikon's corporate
activities or more versed in the intricacies of Nikon's cameras.
No argument from me about his technical knowledge. I simply question the logic that his status as a 'photographer' affords him greater credibility than any other of the legion of 'photographers' active on these forums, many more capable in that regard.
what where you tread; much like the Greeks believed that to not
show respect for the gods was to seal your fate, the same is true
on this forum with certain "deities"
I trust this is tongue-in-cheek. Thom's just a person with opinions
and experiences. Just like everyone else.
Not exactly like everyone else. Almost nobody in these forums has
as many credentials or as extensive a background in digital
photography (or photography in general for that matter) as does
Thom. I for one, give him for more deference than I do 99% of the
people in these forums.
I respect Thom's credentials, as well as his right to his own point of view, but I've never been much for hero-worship, so will not afford him a preponderance of deference simply because of the esteem in which others choose to hold him. Rather, I will consider on a case-by-case basis what he has to contribute, and determine then its value to the discussion at hand. Very often I find Thom to be unbiased, cogent, lucid and an invaluable source of truly useful information (the same can be said for a great many other forum members). But, there are also times when I disagree, and find he may be subject to the bias of his own experiences and preferences, just as we all are from time to time. Either way, I prefer to think critically about his contribution the same way I would that of anyone else.

--
Garland Cary
 
You make it sound like there's only one chance to get a particular
customer before "it's too late".
To some degree, I believe that's true. If we were in an era of constant growth or an era of no growth and no new competitors, time wouldn't be a big factor in what you do. But I've watched this play out in so many markets before, from the original radio to most recently the DSC market, and the same thing happens time and again. We're at a critical juncture with DSLRs. Growth is rapidly tapering while competition is rapidly ratcheting up. Only a couple of companies will emerge clear winners from that. Right now the betting would be on Canon and Nikon, in that order. But a timely strategic announcement from Sony without one from Nikon could easily change that. At issue is economies of scale at a time when companies are literally taking pennies out of products. It's difficult to recover from lost momentum at the top of the hockey stick...
But there have been two recent sea
changes in the industry that mean that is no longer true. The first
is the development of a huge variety of online marketplaces to sell
used gear.
I'd want to see proof of that. Nikon (and other SLR) camera gear has always been easily liquidatable. I'm not convinced that eBay, et.al., have radically changed anything in that respect.
The second is the reduction in the life span of the
camera body.
A temporary issue, I suspect. Do you really think that people will be replacing their DSLRs every two years when we go from 16mp to 20, 20 to 24, 24 to 28? I don't. Not for the bulk of the market.
Those who are interested in Nikon beyond
the individual products are frustrated that Nikon is not doing a
good enough job giving guidance on the future--it makes it hard to
build a business off them as a company.
True. One of the things that other tech industries have figured out that the camera companies have yet to embrace.
To me though it's a an
indication that customers in general are more likely to switch
companies than before.
I'll grant you that. I agree that brand loyalty in cameras is decidedly lower than it was with film (ironically, I think, as with film you could pretty much keep the image quality constant while switching brands, but you can't with digital). But it's not a Canon/Nikon game any more. Sony, and to a smaller degree Oly and Pentax, have an opportunity because of the lack of brand loyalty. The point I'm trying to make is that this is the historical time in an emerging market that the ultimate market winners get pegged, and usually because it's clear where they are and where they're going. Nikon has a mid-30's market share at present. Given that there will be no real growth in unit volumes within a couple of years, they can't afford to let that "temporarily" slip to 20 percent and think that they can make it up with "switchers" by introducing some blockbuster product down the line.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
3. It would give current nikon consumers a reason not switch just
for FF.
Frankly, anyone who NEEDS FF has already switched.
This statement is hard to dispute... If you need to or have to, then you must do it.

I want a FF, but I don't need it and I'm patient so I'm willing to wait for Nikon to release one at an affordable price.

I want a Daytona Ferrari, but I don't need it... I'd buy one if it was at an affordable price too...
The folks that
claim to WANT FF either have already switched or just haven't put
their pocketbook where their mouth is.
This is a simplistic way of thinking about it, it just isn't so.

I haven't "switched" because Canon doesn't offer FF bodies with
adequate eyepoint - I can only see about 70-80% of the frame on a
5D at one time and that's not enough for me to consider it a
workable tool. Of the Canons, only the 1D series (not 1Ds) would be
workable, but that's not FF and there are persistent rumors that
Canon will discontinue the 1.3x line, so no point in investing in
it.

Those of us with a heavy investment in Nikon lenses also are
unlikely to switch just because of a temporary no Nikon FF DSLR
situation. Especially since the competition isn't very impressive
either.
Agreed. But if Nikon announced they would NEVER build a FF dslr, I'd start liquidating my Nikon gear immediately which is a long list.

--
My glamour gallery - Comments appreciated. Link below...

http://www.pixs.ws/gallery2/Models



Cheers,

Darrell
 
"In general in tech, you need to divulge strategy to your
customers, but you keep tactics quiet for both marketing and
competitive reasons."

In tech you sometimes need to divulge strategic decisions to your
developers, in order that the platform updates occur smoothly.
Apple divulged their chip switch so publicly simply because in
general computing the customers and developers are often the same
people--anyone can write a computer program.
Okay, I'll pick right up on your point, because I agree with it (and I'll still stick to my comment ; ).

A photographer IS a developer. How so? Because we're committing to workflow, not just a piece of iron. Nikon has consistently gotten this wrong (just look at the white balance encryption issue or the release of a D2xs without a converter).

Dropping a FF DSLR into the market (especially if it didn't support DX crop) unexpectantly, while it might be looked on positively by some that are fixated on a single issue, would just be another example of having changes of direction forced upon us without notice. Sticking with DX only bodies while making "intensively doing FF R&D" statements would be still worse, as the statement could be interpreted as strategic direction that never gets followed up on.

Personally, I'm standing up for the consumer here, so I stick with my statement: Nikon needs a strong, clear strategic statement that addresses how we Nikon DSLR users move forward without having constant hiccups in both our purchasing decisions and workflows.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
50-135mm f/2.8 DX AF-S VR (70-200mm equivalent)
60mm f/1.4 DX AF-S VR (85mm equivalent)
24mm f/1.4 DX (35mm equivalent) or 20mm f/1.4 DX (28mm equivalent)
12mm f/2.8 DX (20mm equivalent)
While we are making equivalents the 50-135 should be an F2.0 AF-S
VR lens. Olympus has managed several 2.0 lenses with one of them a
70-200 equivalent. (35-100) I don't see a reason that Nikon can't
pull off an F2.0 design in this range.
As you know from my newsletter, if we're talking absolute equivalents, I'd agree. You need the focal length equivalent with a stop advantage in aperture to be absolutely equivalent in DX. But from the standpoint of compromising usability, size, cost, etc., Nikon could cover 90% of the demand with those quasi-equivalents, and we'd get them faster since they'd be easier to design and produce.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
While we are making equivalents the 50-135 should be an F2.0 AF-S
VR lens. Olympus has managed several 2.0 lenses with one of them a
70-200 equivalent. (35-100) I don't see a reason that Nikon can't
pull off an F2.0 design in this range.
I have a 135mm f/2.0 manual focus Nikkor and I bet it has over 600 grams of glass in it... (while the overall weight is around 860 grams - ca. 1.8 pounds, give or take) The new AF version weighs even more.

While the DX format theoretically allows for smaller lenses, I'm having trouble imagining a handy Nikkor 50-135 f/2.0. Just look at 17-55DX and 12-24DX - they scarcely live up to the promise of smaller and lighter optics.

My philosophy is that if you want a shallow DOF, go with old manual fixed focal lenght lenses - that way you may even have fun with the focusing! I'm certainly having! :)

Janne Mankila
 
I may have been too quick to lump you in with Adam and Ubi on this one; but you did choose echo their attacks of Thom ("why should we listen to Thom Hogan, who is he anyway?"). Where has Thom ever said we should take his opinions as gospel, or that his opinions are more valid because he's a better photographer?
I respect Thom's credentials, as well as his right to his own point
of view, but I've never been much for hero-worship, so will not
afford him a preponderance of deference simply because of the
esteem in which others choose to hold him. Rather, I will consider
on a case-by-case basis what he has to contribute, and determine
then its value to the discussion at hand. Very often I find Thom to
be unbiased, cogent, lucid and an invaluable source of truly useful
information (the same can be said for a great many other forum
members).
I said I give Thom more deference than 99% of the people in this forum, and I stand by that. It's not about "hero-worship"; but rather, precisely about what you state below.
But, there are also times when I disagree, and find he
may be subject to the bias of his own experiences and preferences,
just as we all are from time to time. Either way, I prefer to think
critically about his contribution the same way I would that of
anyone else.
Maybe I just share his biases; after all, I find myself nearly always agreeing with his opinions. I treat everyone's posts with the same critical analysis; and well some are right some of the time, and some are right most of the time, I find Thom to be right more often than 99% of the people in these forums.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/myfavorites
 
Yes, I've used the DC 135 F2.0. I don't care about lighter or cheaper and I don't even care if the lens is "DX" or not. I'm looking for a 50-135 F2.0 AFS VR. My point is Olympus already has a lens that's 35-100 F2.0 for the 4:3 system. All I'm asking for is the addition of VR from Nikon. I'd even be willing to go with the same range as Olympus but I'd rather have it slightly longer.

--
Tony

http://www.pbase.com/a5m/ http://AnthonyMedici.naturescapes.net/
 
50-135mm f/2.8 DX AF-S VR (70-200mm equivalent)
60mm f/1.4 DX AF-S VR (85mm equivalent)
24mm f/1.4 DX (35mm equivalent) or 20mm f/1.4 DX (28mm equivalent)
12mm f/2.8 DX (20mm equivalent)
While we are making equivalents the 50-135 should be an F2.0 AF-S
VR lens. Olympus has managed several 2.0 lenses with one of them a
70-200 equivalent. (35-100) I don't see a reason that Nikon can't
pull off an F2.0 design in this range.

--
Tony
Practically I still see one limitation to these f/2 lenses giving us equivalents in DOF isolation and that is sync speed. In many cases where professional strobes are mixed with ambient light if you can only sync at 1/250 you would still have more DOF options with full frame.

K.
 
Yes, I've used the DC 135 F2.0. I don't care about lighter or
cheaper and I don't even care if the lens is "DX" or not. I'm
looking for a 50-135 F2.0 AFS VR. My point is Olympus already has a
lens that's 35-100 F2.0 for the 4:3 system. All I'm asking for is
the addition of VR from Nikon. I'd even be willing to go with the
same range as Olympus but I'd rather have it slightly longer.
That's one of the advantages from having a 2x crop sensor. Look at full frame users - they can only dream of a 100-300 f/2.8 lens, which the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 effectively is.

But I understand your point of view as I would love a 50-135 f/2.0 lens too.. Until the time for a zoom comes, I'm happy with my manual focus lenses 50mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.0 with a 85mm f/1.8 AF between them. But yes, you probably see why I'd love the zoom ;)

Janne Mankila
 
No argument from me about his technical knowledge. I simply
question the logic that his status as a 'photographer' affords him
greater credibility than any other of the legion of 'photographers'
active on these forums, many more capable in that regard.
Uh, he's not "just another photographer," nor just another "author." Spend some time on his website, and you'll see that he is actively engagede in some primary market research. Right now, he's soliciting comments on his Nikon roadmap predictions here:
http://www.bythom.com/roadmap.htm

I don't agree 100% with some of the details his approach (having to do with "sampling bias", but he's doing far more than I am, or most people are, to gage consumer sentiment. You may not agree 100% either. But I challenge you to come up with something better than what he does. I don't know exactly why he goes to all this trouble.
I respect Thom's credentials, as well as his right to his own point
of view, but I've never been much for hero-worship, so will not
It's not hero-worship. If people respected Ken Rockwell as much, that would either be hero worship or mass dementia, whichever is worse. it's a respect based on Tom's hard-won and truly earned expertise. Read some of his books, and you'll see. And unlike Ken, he's not a Nikon fanboy.

I'm not defending him here out of hero-worship. Heck, since I use an alias, Thom doesn't even know who I am, so I can't get any private advantage out of this posting. My "interest" is in a healthy discussion of the issues, and few people bring more to the table than Tom does.
just as we all are from time to time. Either way, I prefer to think
critically about his contribution the same way I would that of
anyone else.
Except that few people have invested as much time and effort as he does to form his opinions and ideas.

--
LongTimeNikonUser
 
1. thom has permission to promote his stuff
Thom Hogan is exempt from the rules of the forum and has permission
to promote his stuff here? Really?
Lets be perfectly clear here. Thom never "promotes" his stuff
here, he replies to people who have questions about his stuff
(which is different). Also, his credentials in his signature or no
different from any professional photographer having a link to their
webpage (as many do).
By putting the info in his signature he is promoting it; again he has permission to do so, but let's call it what it is. It's no different than the URLs many of us put in our signature. We are promoting our work. The only difference is that Thom has the potential to make money from his promoting. But again, he has permission to do so.
2. he's a photographer
Yes, as are the majority of other folks here - some even more
talented.
Perhaps, but few are better informed about Nikon's corporate
activities or more versed in the intricacies of Nikon's cameras.
Actually; Jeff-C is much more in tune with what Nikon has going on. His predictions are nearly flawless.
what where you tread; much like the Greeks believed that to not
show respect for the gods was to seal your fate, the same is true
on this forum with certain "deities"
I trust this is tongue-in-cheek. Thom's just a person with opinions
and experiences. Just like everyone else.
Not exactly like everyone else. Almost nobody in these forums has
as many credentials or as extensive a background in digital
photography (or photography in general for that matter) as does
Thom. I for one, give him for more deference than I do 99% of the
people in these forums.
credentials and awards are for scrap books. Now that said I do tend to take what Thom has to say much more seriously than others; but that doesn't mean I just say "well Thom says X so he must be right." No one is above that.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com
 
Perhaps, but few are better informed about Nikon's corporate
activities or more versed in the intricacies of Nikon's cameras.
Actually; Jeff-C is much more in tune with what Nikon has going on.
His predictions are nearly flawless.
So what is Jeff-C saying on this topic lately?

--
LongTimeNikonUser
 
A photographer IS a developer. How so? Because we're committing to workflow, not just a piece of iron. Nikon has consistently gotten this wrong (just look at the white balance encryption issue or the release of a D2xs without a converter).
You seem to be implying that a full-frame camera would somehow change a photographer's workflow, which I don't see. It wouldn't change the shooting workflow because most photographers learned to shoot SLRs with "full frame" film cameras originally. In fact it seems like a desire to return to a known shooting workflow (lens selection, DOF, etc) is the main reason people are demanding full frame in the first place.

And unless there is some radical difference in the structure of the files, I don't see how FF would change the processing workflow either; once the file is off the camera it's just a RAW or JPG of a certain pixel dimension. Is the processing different for a D200 RAW vs. a D2x RAW? A little, sure, because they are different cameras. But not in any sort of radical way. I would not expect a FF camera to introduce any significant difference other than the usual idiosyncracies. Plenty of Canon-shooting pros mix and match FF and crop bodies without too much trouble.

Both issues you do mention are software issues, that DO directly affect processing workflow. And I think Nikon does get this a little--NX is available as a trial is it not?
Dropping a FF DSLR into the market (especially if it didn't support DX crop) unexpectantly, while it might be looked on positively by some that are fixated on a single issue, would just be another example of having changes of direction forced upon us without notice. Sticking with DX only bodies while making "intensively doing FF R&D" statements would be still worse, as the statement could be interpreted as strategic direction that never gets followed up on.
Again I'll make the point that as customers we are used to having products changed on us without warning. It's the reason we all recommend that photographers buy the best camera they can now, rather than wait for what's just over the horizon. There's always something just over the horizon and it's very rare that we're given a hint or peek. Nikon hardly seems alone in that respect to me.
Personally, I'm standing up for the consumer here, so I stick with my statement: Nikon needs a strong, clear strategic statement that addresses how we Nikon DSLR users move forward without having constant hiccups in both our purchasing decisions and workflows.
That seems a little like a grab for the moral high ground to me. I'm a consumer myself and I'm only sticking up for myself. But I'm also an employee and stockholder (not of Nikon or anything in the photo field though). And as such I can see the value in a company holding its strategy close until it's ready to move tactically. And while it would be nice to get a clear road map so I could plan and budget my camera purchases for the next 10 years, I don't really expect it because I don't get that from ANY company that manufacturers products I buy.
 
Right now the betting would be on Canon and Nikon, in that order. But a timely strategic announcement from Sony without one from Nikon could easily change that.
Why? Because people are more likely to move from brand to brand than before. The very fact that Sony has any chance at all against Nikon, to me, is living proof that it's not as hard as it used to be to get people to switch brands when they buy a new camera.
I'd want to see proof of that. Nikon (and other SLR) camera gear has always been easily liquidatable. I'm not convinced that eBay, et.al., have radically changed anything in that respect.
I don't have statistical proof and I'm not sure how one would go about getting it, short of a massive survey of photographers.

My statement is based firstly on anedotal evidence--many serious photographers I know have sold gear online to finance new gear purchases.

Secondly it's based on broader thinking of advertising and selling online. While I agree that Nikon gear has always been in demand, I disagree that it's no easier to sell it now than it used to be. By advertising and selling online it's way easier to reach and service potential customers. The means for meeting the demand are much more efficient, which results in greater ease, higher sales prices and shorter sales times for the sellers.

In fact I do believe the "used for sale" page on your Web site worked pretty well. :-) I'd say that your ebook business is a testament by itself--that's a much harder business model to pull off without the Web.
Do you really think that people will be replacing their DSLRs every two years when we go from 16mp to 20, 20 to 24, 24 to 28? I don't. Not for the bulk of the market.
I do, at least for the near future. I'm thinking of a lot more than mp, for one. Consider computers, where the GHz war is over yet the product release cycle continues. Now the competition grounds are form factor (portables), number of cores and power consumption.

Take the rate of change of film stocks and camera bodies and multiply them together to predict the rate of change for digital bodies, then add in the x-factor of innovation for capabilities that are above and beyond what was possible with film. On top of that consider the advances in manufacturing capabilities over the past 20 years and what that means for how quickly features can trickle down the line.

I'm speaking vaguely, but hopefully conveying the idea--the rate of change in SLR cameras is not going to slow down any time soon IMO. With a high rate of change, products get "out of date" more quickly, driving repurchase. Sure you can shoot great pictures with a 3mp DSLR (in fact I do--still have a D1h), just like you can browse the Web on an old orange G3 iMac, just like music still sounds great on 1G iPod. But people repurchase to keep up. That's an even easier decision to make if they feel confident they can sell the old gear for money if they need to. One starts to factor in "equity," like considering your trade-in value when looking at a new car.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top