Another weird hypothetical...

beatboxa · Jul 23, 2020

We often hear about third party lenses. And before cameras themselves were sophisticated/feature-rich/doing the job of film, lenses (and film) were probably the dominant factor in selecting a a system. And indeed, for Nikon in particular, lenses have a long history. Nikon's success came in part due to making lenses for Canon cameras. Meanwhile, others, like Fuji, did well with film.

But what if...

What if instead of third party lenses, we saw third party cameras for a given mount? A company could improve ergonomics, sensors, software, and generally ecosystem; and then offer this same camera in various mounts. Would that be interesting? Would the competition of Nikon and others having to face two battle fronts (lenses + cameras) be beneficial to consumers? Would we see acceleration in development and balancing of offerings, or would we see consolidation and exits?

In other words, if Sony had a Z-mount A9 or Canon had a Z-mount R5, would Nikon feel pressured to compete more, or would they exit the electronics and focus on the optics, while Canon did both and Sony did the electronics? or if it's simpler: think micro four thirds.

This is a hypothetical. Please try your best to tap in to your creative brain to separate what will happen (not this) from what could happen (this).

Ke Liu · Jul 23, 2020

I like this idea. And I think the L mount unit is pioneering this approach, at least partially, isn't it ?

beatboxa · Jul 23, 2020

Ke Liu said:
I like this idea. And I think the L mount unit is pioneering this approach, at least partially, isn't it ?

Droster · Jul 23, 2020

That’s the situation with m43. One mount shared between Panasonic and Olympus.

beatboxa · Jul 23, 2020

Droster said:
That’s the situation with m43. One mount shared between Panasonic and Olympus.

Yes.

Though, I mean, I did explicitly use m43 as an example in my original post...

Was there more to this thought?

cosmicnode · Jul 23, 2020

Droster said:
That’s the situation with m43. One mount shared between Panasonic and Olympus.

Blackmagic to!

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera

cocoanud · Jul 23, 2020

Think TCP/IP . The protocol is fixed but the range of devices which support and communicate over that protocol is much varied.

Let’s imagine that the protocol between A) lens and sensor is standardised B) sensor and image pipeline itself is standardised.

In that case, everything else which makes a camera can be varied and mixed and matched.

In a way we are already seeing some of that ? Atomos essentially provide one component of the image pipeline after the light has been captured by the sensor. I haven’t looked into it but my educated guess is, Atomos like products deal with the signal post ADC and are purely DSP products.

Arri is another company which probably have the mix-n-match type products but in the world of video. I guess not as universal/general as we are trying to dream up here though. Hasselblad and Leaf also are somewhat doing the same but again, not as universal as this thought experiment.

beatboxa · Jul 24, 2020

cocoanud said:
Think TCP/IP . The protocol is fixed but the range of devices which support and communicate over that protocol is much varied.

Let’s imagine that the protocol between A) lens and sensor is standardised B) sensor and image pipeline itself is standardised.

In that case, everything else which makes a camera can be varied and mixed and matched.

In a way we are already seeing some of that ? Atomos essentially provide one component of the image pipeline after the light has been captured by the sensor. I haven’t looked into it but my educated guess is, Atomos like products deal with the signal post ADC and are purely DSP products.

Arri is another company which probably have the mix-n-match type products but in the world of video. I guess not as universal/general as we are trying to dream up here though. Hasselblad and Leaf also are somewhat doing the same but again, not as universal as this thought experiment.

Yes, these companies typically provide the products that record the feed, downstream from the camera. I am thinking more in terms of the camera itself (though some provide some connectivity to a camera...not aware of Z's though...)

FKS · Jul 24, 2020

Go further back to M42

Benefit to the consumers? Short term yes, as you'll have access to more bodies and options (let's also assume that flash units etc. also adhere to a common standard). Drawback will be your legacy mount lenses will either need an adapter, or will not work with the new body.

Benefit to the camera companies? Unlikely. Today's cameras are very similar in performance and features (most buying recommendations go along the line of "if you already have lenses for X, stick with X"). I think going to a common mount will mean the death of one of the big three, along with all the other minor players.

beatboxa said:
We often hear about third party lenses. And before cameras themselves were sophisticated/feature-rich/doing the job of film, lenses (and film) were probably the dominant factor in selecting a a system. And indeed, for Nikon in particular, lenses have a long history. Nikon's success came in part due to making lenses for Canon cameras. Meanwhile, others, like Fuji, did well with film.

But what if...

What if instead of third party lenses, we saw third party cameras for a given mount? A company could improve ergonomics, sensors, software, and generally ecosystem; and then offer this same camera in various mounts. Would that be interesting? Would the competition of Nikon and others having to face two battle fronts (lenses + cameras) be beneficial to consumers? Would we see acceleration in development and balancing of offerings, or would we see consolidation and exits?

In other words, if Sony had a Z-mount A9 or Canon had a Z-mount R5, would Nikon feel pressured to compete more, or would they exit the electronics and focus on the optics, while Canon did both and Sony did the electronics? or if it's simpler: think micro four thirds.

This is a hypothetical. Please try your best to tap in to your creative brain to separate what will happen (not this) from what could happen (this).

TSWD · Jul 24, 2020

Fascinating though experiment, thank you for posting it beatboxa.

Micro 4/3 seems to be more collaborative than compared to say Nikon / Canon / Sony. They have more need to do this as smaller players in the wider market. It is hard to transpose Canon / Nikon / Sony to this position from the companies we know today, though admittedly not impossible given market contraction. Fuji using the F mount in the past is another potential example of how companies could cooperate and coexist while still chasing their own niche.

Your premise of Nikon focusing on glass, Sony on sensors and Canon doing both sounds plausible. Using that as a base, I would say pressure could see Canon move out of the sensor market because It isn't their strength. Canon has a strong following for their colours (much stronger than Sony if I believe the DPReview posts) and perhaps they could specialise in that. Similarly I think Sony brings brute force to sensor development (economies of scale, processing power), but per technology Nikon gets more out of it through tuning. Sony has the autofocus lead right now, but Nikon and Canon have had it at other times and could regain their crown. Equally Sony don't seem to be able to master compression where others have.

Much of what we love or hate about ergonomics is about what we are used to, so it is genuinely hard to say who really is best. Personally I love the twin command dial interface and don't like past Canon DSLRs for their control system, but I have to admit past Canon DSLRs sometime fit my right hand better. I don't really like Sony cameras, but do like Fujis. Is that objective though? Who knows. competing on ergonomics with common mounts though is really interesting. I could have a Fuji XE3 for my range finder, a Leica for pure build quality, yet have a common mount to use lenses.

OR how about leaving the mount differences, but allowing more sharing or protocol? One of the best things about mirrorless is the ability to adapt lenses. Nikon has the most adaptable mount and I would love to see adaptors like Techart be officially sanctioned. While I don't like Sony cameras personally, I recognise they have advantages and one of those today is lenses. The Tamron f2.8 trio is fantastic value, they have autofocus Zeiss lenses! I would love these to come to Z cameras. It doesn't require this thought experiment to happen, but it is a way to imagine.

So to answer you question, what could happen? For mirrorless, Sony currently offers the best action / sport camera in the A9 series. Their sensor readout and autofocus capabilities for mirrorless have the edge, so they could maintain a lead here. I don't think Nikon is the optics leader they were in the past, just one of many firms that can produce excellent lenses. I actually think their strength today is in sensor tuning and could see them specialising in that. Their engineers (digital and physical) are good. I actually think Canon is the best lens company today of the camera manufacturers. They have economy, innovation and excellence in optics. Nikon are innovative in optics too at times and their recent track record is excellent, it just doesn't differentiate them any more. Sony should fab and let Nikon tune the sensors. They could build the imagining pipeline, but let Canon (or Olympus or Fuji) tune the colours. Don't discount Sigma and Tamron too for Lenses, their recent efforts have been excellent. Fuji and Leica could build retro bodies, Nikon and Canon contemporary, Sony at the heart for electronics. Hopefully someone else does the software though.

Competing in a decking market makes the focus on market share and USPs even more critical. As a note above it is hard to objectively say one company really is the best for UI, but retro is a niche that can be cornered. One company might win the lens niche of ultimate optical quality, but they might compromise of weight and cost to do so. Another might focus on good enough for a given size / price. Others will have to focus on specific quirks or looks to retain a fan base. Consumers could actually benefit from this, companies may be able to survive, but it is a big come down for some from their historic and current position to such a future.

Horshack · Jul 24, 2020

I think this was effectively the situation with Canon EF lenses and Sony cameras. You don't get native AF performance but the AF was workable in a lot of situations. I have no hard figures but imagine many Sony users migrated from the Canon system.

beatboxa · Jul 24, 2020

Horshack said:
I think this was effectively the situation with Canon EF lenses and Sony cameras. You don't get native AF performance but the AF was workable in a lot of situations. I have no hard figures but imagine many Sony users migrated from the Canon system.

Definitely agree.

I remember before the Z mount a few years ago, there were a lot of discussions; and I was a big believer that Nikon should go with a new mount; and to try to get Canon adapter out there to get some Canon users over (whether directly through Nikon or by enabling a third party). At the time, there seemed to be a general feeling that people liked Canon glass and Nikon cameras (for their combination of ergonomics, performance, and DR). ie. cameras like the D850 over the 5DSR; and that glass is what makes a customer stick to a brand. So my argument was that Nikon Z shouldn't just try to get Nikon F users; but it should try to get Nikon F + Canon EF (because many Sony users were Sony camera + Canon lens still).

beatboxa · Jul 24, 2020

TSWD said:
Fascinating though experiment, thank you for posting it beatboxa.

Micro 4/3 seems to be more collaborative than compared to say Nikon / Canon / Sony. They have more need to do this as smaller players in the wider market. It is hard to transpose Canon / Nikon / Sony to this position from the companies we know today, though admittedly not impossible given market contraction. Fuji using the F mount in the past is another potential example of how companies could cooperate and coexist while still chasing their own niche.

Your premise of Nikon focusing on glass, Sony on sensors and Canon doing both sounds plausible. Using that as a base, I would say pressure could see Canon move out of the sensor market because It isn't their strength. Canon has a strong following for their colours (much stronger than Sony if I believe the DPReview posts) and perhaps they could specialise in that. Similarly I think Sony brings brute force to sensor development (economies of scale, processing power), but per technology Nikon gets more out of it through tuning. Sony has the autofocus lead right now, but Nikon and Canon have had it at other times and could regain their crown. Equally Sony don't seem to be able to master compression where others have.

Much of what we love or hate about ergonomics is about what we are used to, so it is genuinely hard to say who really is best. Personally I love the twin command dial interface and don't like past Canon DSLRs for their control system, but I have to admit past Canon DSLRs sometime fit my right hand better. I don't really like Sony cameras, but do like Fujis. Is that objective though? Who knows. competing on ergonomics with common mounts though is really interesting. I could have a Fuji XE3 for my range finder, a Leica for pure build quality, yet have a common mount to use lenses.

OR how about leaving the mount differences, but allowing more sharing or protocol? One of the best things about mirrorless is the ability to adapt lenses. Nikon has the most adaptable mount and I would love to see adaptors like Techart be officially sanctioned. While I don't like Sony cameras personally, I recognise they have advantages and one of those today is lenses. The Tamron f2.8 trio is fantastic value, they have autofocus Zeiss lenses! I would love these to come to Z cameras. It doesn't require this thought experiment to happen, but it is a way to imagine.

So to answer you question, what could happen? For mirrorless, Sony currently offers the best action / sport camera in the A9 series. Their sensor readout and autofocus capabilities for mirrorless have the edge, so they could maintain a lead here. I don't think Nikon is the optics leader they were in the past, just one of many firms that can produce excellent lenses. I actually think their strength today is in sensor tuning and could see them specialising in that. Their engineers (digital and physical) are good. I actually think Canon is the best lens company today of the camera manufacturers. They have economy, innovation and excellence in optics. Nikon are innovative in optics too at times and their recent track record is excellent, it just doesn't differentiate them any more. Sony should fab and let Nikon tune the sensors. They could build the imagining pipeline, but let Canon (or Olympus or Fuji) tune the colours. Don't discount Sigma and Tamron too for Lenses, their recent efforts have been excellent. Fuji and Leica could build retro bodies, Nikon and Canon contemporary, Sony at the heart for electronics. Hopefully someone else does the software though.

Competing in a decking market makes the focus on market share and USPs even more critical. As a note above it is hard to objectively say one company really is the best for UI, but retro is a niche that can be cornered. One company might win the lens niche of ultimate optical quality, but they might compromise of weight and cost to do so. Another might focus on good enough for a given size / price. Others will have to focus on specific quirks or looks to retain a fan base. Consumers could actually benefit from this, companies may be able to survive, but it is a big come down for some from their historic and current position to such a future.

Thank you for this. Interesting perspective.

BTW, I generally prefer Nikon colors in most side-by-side blind tests I've taken--and interestingly so have some of my Canon friends. I think there's much to be said about bandwagoning hype vs. objective results.

But I like your perspective in the strengths and weaknesses of the various players. I wonder how many of them recognize their own strengths and weaknesses relative to the competition--and further, how many will put resources toward improving them..

TSWD · Jul 24, 2020

I think corporate pride can sometimes blind the camera companies to embrace their particular strengths and weaknesses, but deep down suspect they are aware. Nikon seems to be listening more than ever with the way they have prioritised their lens roadmap and firmware updates. There is nothing like a downturn and structural change to focus the mind.

I actually agree with you on Nikon colour, but basing my comments more on my interpretation of market perception. I shoot raw + jpeg in NL profile because I find that a great starting point for raw development. I'm not sure the wider market agrees with me though. Pleasing Vs accurate also comes into play and while it isn't my preference, I believe market preferences are legitimate.

rhlpetrus · Jul 24, 2020

I think Sigma once had F mount cameras, no? Kodak too, in the very early digital times. And Nikon started making lenses for Leica ans Zeiss mounts. But I doubt Nikon would go back to just making lenses, unless things get really awful for their imaging division.

Hilifer · Jul 24, 2020

beatboxa said:
We often hear about third party lenses. And before cameras themselves were sophisticated/feature-rich/doing the job of film, lenses (and film) were probably the dominant factor in selecting a a system. And indeed, for Nikon in particular, lenses have a long history. Nikon's success came in part due to making lenses for Canon cameras. Meanwhile, others, like Fuji, did well with film.

But what if...

What if instead of third party lenses, we saw third party cameras for a given mount? A company could improve ergonomics, sensors, software, and generally ecosystem; and then offer this same camera in various mounts. Would that be interesting? Would the competition of Nikon and others having to face two battle fronts (lenses + cameras) be beneficial to consumers? Would we see acceleration in development and balancing of offerings, or would we see consolidation and exits?

In other words, if Sony had a Z-mount A9 or Canon had a Z-mount R5, would Nikon feel pressured to compete more, or would they exit the electronics and focus on the optics, while Canon did both and Sony did the electronics? or if it's simpler: think micro four thirds.

This is a hypothetical. Please try your best to tap in to your creative brain to separate what will happen (not this) from what could happen (this).

Two glasses (f0.95...) into a pretty decent bottle of Malbec on a Friday evening, I’m just going to go with 10 thumbs up.

That said, reminds me of the mid-90s when Apple licensed their OS. To me, Nikon is about the glass. That’s what sold me on the brand in 2001 when I chose a D1X over whatever Canon’s offerings were at the time. I see Nikon, somewhat, as the Apple of the photography world; I never did buy a UMAX, but I do recall that it introduced more than a few Windows users to the Apple OS (Apple OEM has always been bien caro)... many of whom, I’ll guess, frequent Apple Stores today.

--
Moretti
"Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before.“

michaeladawson · Jul 24, 2020

But I think they may have actually used the D200 shell as well. But their own sensor and firmware.

Even as a thought experiment I’m not interested, though. Sigma could do it if they wanted to. Why don’t they? Why haven’t they?

Paul Pasco · Jul 24, 2020

This was done in the film days to some extent with the m42 screw mount and then with the K mount. Chinon and Cosina were lens makers that both made decent bodies with the K mount. A problem today is the tech side is so sophisticated and the existing makers have each other to compete with and drive innovation, how is a third party supposed to come up with something better or at least competitive? I guess Sony literally did that but they started by buying a company with expertise (Konica-Minolta) and arguably had a huge engineering department behind them.

run_cmd · Jul 25, 2020

I would love a 5:4 (or gfx sensor as a multi aspect sensor) Z mount camera with contrast detection and good eye autofocus in single shot (think Panasonic / Olympus) as a portrait / magazine specialist. 16 bit raw and 15 stops dynamic range.

paulski66 · Jul 25, 2020

But then Nikon decided enough was enough and pulled the license allowing them to do so.

Those early Fuji F-mount dSLRs had a small but loyal following though, with some feeling the S2 was superior to anything Nikon was offering at the time.

Another weird hypothetical...

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

New member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts