Are you concerned about Nikon longterm?

Started Feb 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
ragmanjin Contributing Member • Posts: 959
Re: Are you concerned about Nikon longterm?

bobn2 wrote:

You might not like the 1 series, but it has not been unsuccessful, and if was very carefully focussed on on action photography. It has capabilities that no other camera system, including pro DSLR's, does. Rather better than the 'me too' that every other company is going for.

It wasn't focussed on action photography, it was focussed on soccer moms and advertised by Ashton Kutcher in a suit. I'm just saying, they have no easily-accessible manual controls, meaning they're obviously aimed at the beginner crowd — but the beginner willing to spend $900 on a plastic camera rather than $15 on a how-to photography book is most likely more attracted to style (both the camera's and his/her own whilst holding it). Plus, the tiny, tiny sensors give no control over depth of field and lend to the same tiny pixel pitch problems as their new, high-res SLRs.

Their incessant push for more resolution at the expense of all else is crippling their image quality (if you don't believe me, just check out the Studio Comparison Tool, under Sample Images above, and look at the Nikon D800E, D3200, Pentax K-5IIs and Canon 6D in RAW at ISO 3200 and look to the shadows, neutral greys or the little globe next to all the pencil crayons).

What a complete load of tosh. Who knows what 'image quality' is, it is a term without definition, so rogues and charlatans can claim good or bad 'image quality' as they wish without ever having to back up their claims. Look at DxOmark measurements of the testable and measurable components of 'image quality' and you can see that Nikon leads out every other manufacturer in every class of DSLR, no matter whether the sensors come fro their own team, for Sony or Toshiba. High pixel density is part of the reason for that - piling on the pixels increases 'image quality', it odes not reduce it.

Did you look at the example? Piling on the pixels doesn't increase image quality, it increases resolution. Piling the pixels onto little APS-C and even 35mm sensors reduces pixel pitch, making each pixel less effective at gathering light and colour information, leads to a lower signal-to-noise ratio, etc., etc....reduces, you know, all of the things quality images are made of.

And honestly, DxOmark has always been very Nikon-biased. There is no one article in their whole site that doesn't suggest Nikon somewhere in the pages. That's why I suggested using DPReview's own comparison tool, so you can see the unaltered, visual results for yourself rather than reading somebody else's opinion about it. I highly recommend a quick look, Bobn2. You might be surprised.

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