The REAL scoop on MX!

Started Nov 9, 2008 | Discussions thread
Bernard Languillier Veteran Member • Posts: 4,672
Don't think so

RKGoth wrote:

Bernard Languillier wrote:

  • Nikon has been running behind the 35 mm competition in terms of

perceived high end, and it will be hard for them to release something
that really differentiates them from the compeition -> they need a
paradigm shift.

They've already done that - the D3's performance and their aggressive
marketing and product strategy have seen them massively increase
their market share for pro cameras.

They have walked a few steps in the right direction, but mega pixel count remains the key metrics in most people's mind. According to that one, they are currently only half as good, and even if they catch up today they will have been one year behind which will enable Canon to move ahead again within one year or so... they are de facto accepting to be behind the curve 50% of the time or more for years to come. It doesn't look like a smart strategy for an ambitious company.

Anyway you look at it, Nikon does have any choice, they HAVE to go MF.

The only reason Nikon would have to go MF is if Canon did.

I have just listed 6 very good reasons why Nikon would want to do it even if Canon doesn't.

And MF has
not been an area which is going to see massive growth; the ZD
actually represented a simple, easy to use camera for the MF market.
Even if it had been equipped with something better than the Dalsa
22Mp sensor, it would have flopped (as it did). I used one, lovely
machine, dog slow and useless over 160 ISO - but the movement
required to bring that camera into "prosumer" expectations of
performance would be immense.

The only NO problem area of the ZD is its sensor that is amazing IMHO (except for its long exposure limitations). Low ISO is not a problem for these applications. All the rest is way behind what Nikon can do and also mostly behind the competition.

Besides, Mamiya did a few key mistakes in speccing the ZD, the most obvious one being the bit depth of their processing pipe. This has zero influence on the performance from what I could tell, but it was used by competition as a key differentiator of solutions costing twice more.

I don't believe that the ZD was a commercial failure, but better execution (bit depth issue, SOP delay,...) would have made it a huge success.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the potential is there and that Nikon has the potential to make is amazingly it right. The only question really is whether Nikon board had the nerves to do it or not.

People don't want to spend £2,000+ on ordinary glass. People don't
want to spend £7,000+ on their bodies. If they do, they want
something flexible with a very long useful life, so they want a
system with upgradeable backs.

Who is saying that an MX body would target ordinary shooters?

The price of the body is not relevant in the current MFDB world. The body is essentially given away for free with the back.

The only value of the modular approach is the ability to use the back with a large format type camera with movements. This is the only aspect that would perhaps make me hesitate between the Nikon MX and a more expensive solution from the Hassy, Phaseone or Leaf.

Much as I'd like to see a digital Fujica 645, it's not going to
happen. The processing requirements for that sort of image size
require more space for cooling, more space for the battery and more
space for RAM.

Who cares about RAM nowadays. You can get 32GB for a Mac pro for about 1500 US$, that is a non issue.

Besides the target folks for the MX do either already shoot another back, scan MF/LF already (with much larger files still) or stitch.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow