Nikon determines that Digital Cameras not up to competing with Film

henryp said:

henryp wrote:

henryp said:

MPrince wrote:

A more likely conclusion is that Nikon's revenue stream from film cameras is negligible, so why bother?

Click to expand...

FWIW for the first time they didn't have any film cameras at PhotoPlus Expo last week either, even though the F6, F100 & FM10 remain available.

Click to expand...

None of which has been produced by Nikon in over six years.

It does okay for viewing photos, and it has its own light source. So, just like slides, you're using an emissive photo viewer, not reflective in the case of prints, so color is more accurate, and DR is quite a bit better.


Or in the case of a few cameras like the Oly EM5, you can review photos in the EVF, so they come out looking almost exactly like they would in a slide viewer.

Film cameras make you so much less money than digital cameras. You buy a Nikon FM, and it lasts for 20 or 30 years, doing the same thing as an F6, with a few less bells and whistles.

Compare that to the frantic upgrading of digital cameras! If you were a camera maker, what kind would YOU make? It's obvious.

Lyle, your question is deeper than you might imagine. The reason they want to kill film is not about quality or heritage or manufacturing. It is simply about executive bonuses.

You see, many consumer electronics companies are now run by passionless MBAs who will knowingly kill their brand's future with shortsighted marketing strategies designed to maximize their bonus. They "must" make the month; but they never consider making the decade.

Once the linear-thinking beancounters and the over-educated MBAs take over a brand, it will be set adrift; like a sailboard without a daggerboard. Oh, sure there is a rudder, but it's useless without the daggerboard. One or two idiots at headquarters--with approval from their "design by committee" staff--can kill a brand in just a few years.

Nikon is making all the same mistakes that so many other once-great brands made in the 1980s. This self-imposed suicide happens because MOST people lack any real cognitive skill. Critical thinking is not taught in school. This also explains why so many educated voters will support corrupt and incompetent politicians. People can rationalize anything--even their own demise.

Dpreview has attempted to stem the negativity in threads by using thumbs rather than comments and it is like herding cats. Better than nothing though. Most of the serious pinheads though are on the off topic forum. That place is very frustrating to attempt a civil discussion on. Not to be a troll here though, I think the (two) answers about Nikon's reasons being trying to steer sales to their products and means of processing are probably right. Too bad though. Photography is art and film vs digital shouldn't matter.

Will

Lyle-Mi said:

Lyle-Mi wrote:

Lyle-Mi said:

GodSpeaks wrote:
Don't think so. Maybe Nikon realizes that digital now beats film by such a margin, that film can no longer compete with digital.

Click to expand...

If this were the case, then there should be NO PROBLEM with allowing film submissions - they would naturally loose. The only reason to ban them, is because Nikon is afraid they would win.

Click to expand...

An old timer with a GW690 winning while a Nikon D800 user came second would've been a PR disaster.

TrapperJohn said:

TrapperJohn wrote:

It does okay for viewing photos, and it has its own light source. So, just like slides, you're using an emissive photo viewer, not reflective in the case of prints, so color is more accurate, and DR is quite a bit better.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. You are using a specialized handheld computer (very expensive) to view the digital photo file. With a slide all you need is light, even sunlight (thought don't stare at the sun ) I'm talking about finished photos. Think in 15 years when your dSLR doesn't work because the batteries for it won't hold a charge and you've put SLR photography aside in older age. Nothing beats free sunlight!