Canon's video advantage

Started Oct 30, 2011 | Discussions thread
davidxyz Regular Member • Posts: 344
Re: Canon's video advantage

bobn2 wrote:

You're simply not reading what I wrote. Look below the surface of what the cameras are to the technology they contain. Some of it is an astounding step forward.

You are missing the point in spectacular fashion. I've made it pretty clear that I'm speaking about into the future.

Let me rephrase. I'm questioning the efficacy of Nikon's traditional philosophy in terms of how well it well it will continue to serve them in a rapidly changing FUTURE where they do not own significant proprietary technology or have a significant presence in fields that are changing traditional 35mm photography. Outright ownership of sensor tech into the FUTURE, exploration of a Nikon video division etc.

If you understand Nikon's history you would also understand that the company has a strong engineering orientation, and this is one of the important drivers of Nikon's particular history and what has distinguised it from Canon. It partly accounts for Nikon giving up its industry sales lead to Canon during the era of the F4 due to the company not wishing (rightly or wrongly) to compromise the mechanical characteristics of its lens system by adopting autofocus. Leica engineers were of a similar mindset at the time, and today that company still refuses to make a top of the line AF camera.

What made Nikon a powerful company therefore was not being at the cutting edge of tech but patiently integrating tech to produce solid, functional, reliable cameras. In a sense they are the Leica of the 35mm AF. But no one who knows Nikon can truly say they have been at the cusp of new technology for the last 30 years. They simply put everything together better than anyone else.

I'm saying that with the massive amounts of disruptive technology coming and increased competitive pressure this approach needs to be tweaked to secure Nikon's FUTURE. Continuing to engineering available technology that is within the current contexts alone may not be enough to sustain this company. At some point Nikon should probably significantly increase its investment in non-DSLR R+D and fab its own sensors, increase its video capability, develop apps, experiment with new lens designs etc.

Who has gone outside 'traditional imaging technology'?


All of these companies have gone outside traditional imaging technology over the years. All have made some 'game changing' innovations over the years. Its not some great leap into something else but a technological cline. For example video in an SLR was not a traditional imaging tech. Neither was a phone in a camera. Neither was photoediting IN the camera.

You're off on a tangent again, how are those technological advances from anything other than developing a platform. a fa

Again Nikon, like any other imaging company in this businness climate, should be heavily invested in the NEW to stay relevant. Nikon's history suggests this may be an area they wish to strengthen. Its not that hard to understand.

Every engineering company that competes in today's environment realizes the importance of developing a base from which new tech can be incoprporated into product design. Canon's lead in video is not a coincidence.

Which company has a technology 'base' like that displayed in the D3s, teh 1 system and the D7000?

Yet again you insist on missing the point that that I'm discussing FUTURE tech and the viability of Nikon's philosophy into the FUTURE, based on historical patterns. I've clearly stated that Nikon makes excellent products TODAY.

Saying they have all the technology they need is not addressing certain realities. There was a time when you could have said good manual focus abilities are all you need. Minolta changed that. Or you could have said that AF speed could never take the place of good MF. Canon changed that. Or you might say that good ISO at 800 is all you need, or that DX is all you need. All these disruptive technologies have hit Nikon's bottom line very hard but they always able to overcome them. But Nikon's conservative strategies may work against them when disruptive tech is multi-faceted and coming in the form of video, cell phones and mobile apps, small form cameras and there is competition from industry giants.

Again. Which technology are you talking about that they do not have. They have the most efficient sensors, by some margin. they have the fastest image processor by some margin, they have image sensor AF. Which of the 'industry giants' has all that?

If you want to argue then please argue the points that I addressed, not stuff you're making up in your head. Regarding Nikon's design history, is its driving philosophy enough to sustain its dominance in the imagaing industry looking ahead without some type of tweaking or reinvention of itself?

In disruptive environments some companies will become more relevant, some will become less relevant. I'm saying that there are at least two disruptive technologies that Nikon is behind the 8-ball. Video and mirrorless.

You are wrong about mirrorless, completely. The 1 series is the most capable highest tech mirrorless that there is. It just happens to be targeted at a market different from what you expected. So far as video is concerned, again in capability teh 1 series says they can do it as well as anyone. the problem is getting the product spec right for a company not in that market.

Perhaps mirroless is not a good example. My intention was to discuss the usefullness of the company going beyond still image products, which mirroless is a part of. It seems to have you stuck in the present.

It has developed the technology. It just seems that you can't see below the surface of the product.

Of course

-- hide signature --


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow