I wish Nikon do an experiment

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

I never use D-lighting, nor bracketing, nor focus priority or mirror lock up. Actually, I only used auto iso once, so lets get rid of that too. And P mode, that must cost a bundle to maintain. Or the crop modes, never use them either.

I want a cheaper camera with those functions removed!

Does that reasoning make sense to you? It is about as logical as the case you are making.

Look, new functions are added all the time. I guess many users will never use the remote capabilities (http server) of the new D4 - should it have been left out then? Or the memory banks of IPTC data? Or the ability to save a time lapse movie from a series of shots?

Many people seem to have a unhealthy hangup on video. It is just one function in a long, long list of functions of modern cameras. It is getting a bit tedious with people obsessing over this. Maybe I should start a new thread every week arguing about why we don't need bracketing or why further development of D-lighting or 3D focus robs valuable development resources from oter more important things. Like video ...

There are enough photo journalists an sports shooters wanting video in Nikon cameras to make Nikon develop it. You might not like it, but it is the way cameras is moving forward. Get over it.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

I thought KSV was making a point similar to your own rather than the opposite.

Grevture said:

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

I never use D-lighting, nor bracketing, nor focus priority or mirror lock up. Actually, I only used auto iso once, so lets get rid of that too. And P mode, that must cost a bundle to maintain. Or the crop modes, never use them either.

I want a cheaper camera with those functions removed!

Click to expand...

Well I would not want to live without mirror lockup but happy to lose the following:

All JPEG-related processing (never use any of it)
Live view (never use it)
Video (never use it on my SLR)

Grevture said:

Does that reasoning make sense to you? It is about as logical as the case you are making.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you are making the same case. There is too much useless cr*p in most SLRs.

Grevture said:

Look, new functions are added all the time. I guess many users will never use the remote capabilities (http server) of the new D4 - should it have been left out then? Or the memory banks of IPTC data? Or the ability to save a time lapse movie from a series of shots?

Click to expand...

Yes. For some models. The tendency to add everything but the kitchen sink to every camera (feature bloat) just makes the manual heavier. Try to please everyone and you please no-one.

Grevture said:

Many people seem to have a unhealthy hangup on video. It is just one function in a long, long list of functions of modern cameras. It is getting a bit tedious with people obsessing over this. Maybe I should start a new thread every week arguing about why we don't need bracketing or why further development of D-lighting or 3D focus robs valuable development resources from oter more important things. Like video ...

There are enough photo journalists an sports shooters wanting video in Nikon cameras to make Nikon develop it. You might not like it, but it is the way cameras is moving forward. Get over it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is also a market for a simpler, less complex camera. Why are so many PJs using MFT and compact cameras these days?

You can pander to one market and completely lose another. Several of my friends have ditched their smart phones because a cheap tablet does it all better, and they use a simple phone with old fashioned buttons to make calls on, because its just so much simpler and cheaper.

The point is there is far more market segmentation than Canon or Nikon have yet realised, they are too busy chasing each other. Looks like Fuji are tuning in to some of the other voices.

--
Regards,
Steve

If hackers can bypass and alter Nikon's image authentication software, I'm sure video would get hacked in no time and the proposed business models gets washed down the drain. I can count on 1 hand how many times I used the D700's pop up flash. Doesn't mean I want Nikon to leave it out to charge me less. It's good to have it and not need it vs needing it and not having it.
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

CriticalI said:

Yes, but there is also a market for a simpler, less complex camera. Why are so many PJs using MFT and compact cameras these days?

Click to expand...

Many use them as options yes, but extremely few use them as their main cameras.

And MFT and compacts have video too ... These cameras are mainly used because they are smaller and lighther. They are not smaller and lighter because they lack functions, but because they have smaller sensors. Firmware functionality (like video) does not add to size, nor weight. Larger sensors does, and we certainly don't want Canon and Nikon to stop making large sensor cameras. I sure don't ...

CriticalI said:

You can pander to one market and completely lose another. Several of my friends have ditched their smart phones because a cheap tablet does it all better, and they use a simple phone with old fashioned buttons to make calls on, because its just so much simpler and cheaper.

The point is there is far more market segmentation than Canon or Nikon have yet realised, they are too busy chasing each other. Looks like Fuji are tuning in to some of the other voices.

Click to expand...

Segmentation into more models cost a lot of money. This is the simple fact many people seem to be unnable to wrap their heads around. It is cheaper to build a few models and throw everything and the kitchen sink into them then to make many models separated by levels of functionality.

Segmenting the market they way you suggest would leave us with more expensive cameras, even those with less functions. This since volume is the single most important factor in keeping costs of a model down.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

Grevture said:

CriticalI said:

Yes, but there is also a market for a simpler, less complex camera. Why are so many PJs using MFT and compact cameras these days?

Click to expand...

Many use them as options yes, but extremely few use them as their main cameras.

And MFT and compacts have video too ... These cameras are mainly used because they are smaller and lighther. They are not smaller and lighter because they lack functions, but because they have smaller sensors. Firmware functionality (like video) does not add to size, nor weight. Larger sensors does, and we certainly don't want Canon and Nikon to stop making large sensor cameras. I sure don't ...

Grevture said:

You can pander to one market and completely lose another. Several of my friends have ditched their smart phones because a cheap tablet does it all better, and they use a simple phone with old fashioned buttons to make calls on, because its just so much simpler and cheaper.

The point is there is far more market segmentation than Canon or Nikon have yet realised, they are too busy chasing each other. Looks like Fuji are tuning in to some of the other voices.

Click to expand...

Segmentation into more models cost a lot of money. This is the simple fact many people seem to be unnable to wrap their heads around. It is cheaper to build a few models and throw everything and the kitchen sink into them then to make many models separated by levels of functionality.

Segmenting the market they way you suggest would leave us with more expensive cameras, even those with less functions. This since volume is the single most important factor in keeping costs of a model down.

Click to expand...

Why? It works fine with laptops and cars. Why not cameras?

Grevture said:

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Steve

the idea of a modular camera is not completely without merit...what if you could order a custom built D4.....16mp sensor with high ISO, or 36? Video or not? sports package or studio package?

I think someone would be smart to do something like this...one body, several options, customize on line, or buy a pre-determined package...they do it with cars, computers, why not cameras?

KSV - Great post - I suspect this will trigger a lot of debate !

I like your thinking - sure there are business challenges in your suggestion, but hey overcoming challenges is what innovation is all about.

It would be interesting to have Nikon (or someone else) create a table that across the top, listed all the features in a given model and then allowed customers (or potential customers) to put a tick (or a rating for relative importance) to each feature they wanted (or used) - I'm sure it would provide them with some interesting insights.

The idea of cramming as many features as possible into a specific model for a range of targeted customers is a doubled edged sword - by including them in all units it averages down the cost - but at the same time increases the price.

I for 1 would be interested in a model that allowed me to buy on demand the feature function I need in a camera - both at time of purchase and in the future.

In this day where the "what" is becoming a increasingly more difficult to differentiate perhaps "how" is an opportunity to compete ?
Rgds

Don't forget that professional still shooters don't have video rights to the games they shoot. If someone with a video capable camera is caught shooting video at say an NFL game, the big networks and the NFL network just might tell all of the still shooters to stuff it and stay out.

Mikeon88 said:

KSV - Great post - I suspect this will trigger a lot of debate !

I like your thinking - sure there are business challenges in your suggestion, but hey overcoming challenges is what innovation is all about.

It would be interesting to have Nikon (or someone else) create a table that across the top, listed all the features in a given model and then allowed customers (or potential customers) to put a tick (or a rating for relative importance) to each feature they wanted (or used) - I'm sure it would provide them with some interesting insights.

The idea of cramming as many features as possible into a specific model for a range of targeted customers is a doubled edged sword - by including them in all units it averages down the cost - but at the same time increases the price.

I for 1 would be interested in a model that allowed me to buy on demand the feature function I need in a camera - both at time of purchase and in the future.

In this day where the "what" is becoming a increasingly more difficult to differentiate perhaps "how" is an opportunity to compete ?
Rgds

Click to expand...

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike (Don't fall or collide with others)
Layer 2: Follow the rules (Don't be the cause of traffic crashes)
Layer 3: Use Lane position (Discourage other drivers mistakes)
Layer 4: Hazard Avoidance (Avoid other drivers mistakes and road hazards)
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (Use protection when all else fails)

Chris, Broussard, LA

commiebiker said:

the idea of a modular camera is not completely without merit...what if you could order a custom built D4.....16mp sensor with high ISO, or 36? Video or not? sports package or studio package?

I think someone would be smart to do something like this...one body, several options, customize on line, or buy a pre-determined package...they do it with cars, computers, why not cameras?

Click to expand...

I see what you mean and I like the idea, but cars are designed to have options and your average computer sells 10 to 1 compared to professional cameras, but it also is designed to be modular and have options.

There are several things about the D4, I would like to swap out. I would like either dual Cf slots or dual XQD slots. Also, they can drop all of the video features. I would never use that unless i spotted JFK, Elvis or a UFO. And that's not going to happen.

--
Good cyclists are:
Visible, Predictable, Alert, Assertive and Courteous

They also use the five layers of protection available.
Layer 1: Control your bike (Don't fall or collide with others)
Layer 2: Follow the rules (Don't be the cause of traffic crashes)
Layer 3: Use Lane position (Discourage other drivers mistakes)
Layer 4: Hazard Avoidance (Avoid other drivers mistakes and road hazards)
Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (Use protection when all else fails)

Chris, Broussard, LA

That modular idea is what i was getting at in the thread "what is the perfect camers" started by alan54g a little while ago.

Even then i couldn't really fit everthing into one camera. i came up two distinct cameras for very different reasons (shooting situations). One for work and one for play. The high res for play, the 16mp for work/work flow .

I've gotten a couple surveys from Nikon asking about features, use, etc....even down to what I thought about the default exposure on the D3s

Grevture said:

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

I never use D-lighting, nor bracketing, nor focus priority or mirror lock up. Actually, I only used auto iso once, so lets get rid of that too. And P mode, that must cost a bundle to maintain. Or the crop modes, never use them either.

I want a cheaper camera with those functions removed!

Does that reasoning make sense to you? It is about as logical as the case you are making.

Look, new functions are added all the time. I guess many users will never use the remote capabilities (http server) of the new D4 - should it have been left out then? Or the memory banks of IPTC data? Or the ability to save a time lapse movie from a series of shots?

Many people seem to have a unhealthy hangup on video. It is just one function in a long, long list of functions of modern cameras. It is getting a bit tedious with people obsessing over this. Maybe I should start a new thread every week arguing about why we don't need bracketing or why further development of D-lighting or 3D focus robs valuable development resources from oter more important things. Like video ...

There are enough photo journalists an sports shooters wanting video in Nikon cameras to make Nikon develop it. You might not like it, but it is the way cameras is moving forward. Get over it.

Click to expand...

These other features you're talking about exist only in the menus, while there are significant ergonomic changes in the body made for video.

In the first case you just can ignore these menu options, but you cant ignore the altered ergonomics.

You insult many people by calling them idiots because they want video and you don't?

Hell..If the D4 came with a 70-200 VRII they could market it as a point and shoot for only a few thousand more!

001FJ said:

You insult many people by calling them idiots because they want video and you don't?

Click to expand...

They (presumably you as well) crying "GIMME MY VIDEO" because they believe that video is "for free". Fair enough - something for "nothing". But IMHO only idiot will pay $1000 to add it on. Indeed I incredibly curious how many actually prepare to pay for it, thus we will now how much that "feature" actually "needed". Unfortunately this is just a dream.

And of course this logic applicable to all bells and whistles that modern DSLR stuffed with - I do not believe that people will pay even for half of them.

Why do you call users who wants to use video for their clients idiots? Do you own a studio? Do you get paid for photography? If not just shut up!

I preordered the D4 for it's videocapabilities only.

KSV said:

Or Canon - does not matter really.

Launch camera (say D700 successor) with video enable, but locked out. Price it very keen, say $2K. And then charge those who like unlock video $1000 and see how many actually pay it. Heck! Still cheaper then descent quality camcoder! I just love to see how many those who dying for video will pay. Bet just few idiots around globe. Go figure.

Click to expand...

I dont have a problem with Video , I simply choose not to use it as my preference .

I do not critisize users who want Video ,but I expect the same respect for my decision not to have it .

I dont think for one minute that it would be realistic to expect Nikon or any of the other DSLR manufacturers to produce variants ,just because of our choice differences .

I would think it a good idea however ,if the manufactureres keep external buttons and switches for video to a minimum ,and offer a firmware that will allow users to "hide" features they dont want ,not just Video .that would make for a simple menu system tailored to the owner of each particular camera .

at the end of the day ,these are essentially SLR cameras ,they have been designed based on known needs and ergonimics to suit the functions of still photography ,now that Video has been added ,I feel the shape of a DSLR is not really that suitable for motion pictures, and would hope that nikon does not desecrate the well known DSLR design too much towards Video specific design ,this would ultimately create in the long term ,a Video camera that simply can take stills too .
I think that its this idea that scares the dedicated still photographers .

so lets just agree to disagree without arguing about it ,and just enjoy our photography regardless.

video is here to stay ,we can only hope and trust ,that the manufactureres will do us proud without destroying the past .

I wish another experiment... can Nikon do all that in the F5's back ? say $600
--
Un saludo.