wkkato
wkkato
Is it now the time for a groundswell of support for the Nikon RF digital body seeing that the D600 with its 24.3 mp live view sensor IS 100-6400 is now available?
Warren
:angel:
:angel:
Warren
:angel:
:angel:Vickko
Veteran
The Leica M with Nikon S adapter is going to be good fun.
I wonder if the 2.1cm f4 would work.
I suppose the 2.5cm won't because of lack of focus access.
I wonder if the 2.1cm f4 would work.
I suppose the 2.5cm won't because of lack of focus access.
fstops
-
Nikon is a photographer's camera maker, its also a trend-setter and the most respected camera maker right now. Why would they join the "Leica wannabe mirrorless rat race" to appease the gear fetishists?
Fuji and Sony are already busy there so let them continue on until the "fad" fades away.
Fuji and Sony are already busy there so let them continue on until the "fad" fades away.
bugmenot
Well-known
Not sure if sarcastic or not. Are you saying mirrorless cameras and compact cameras with large sensors, some with interchangeable lenses, are purely a fad? Merely another item of fascination that will fade away in a blink of an eye when the next fad starts? What survives longer then? DSLRs? In the face of history of photography, the duration for which viable DSLRs have been available could be classified as a "fad" too.
Dismissing market patterns is what many many photography companies and manufacturers did in the last hundred years or so. Most of them met an untimely demise.
fstops
-
M4/3, what was that all about, how much money got sunk into that?
And once FF cameras become common, do you think these APS-C mirrorless cameras would have any 'trend value' left in them?
How long before the first FF mirroless (interchangeable lens)? 6 months? a Year?
The main drivers of photography market today are trend-buyers, fad-chasers, otherwise absurd products like the new Hassleblad won't even see the light of day.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I don't know why you talk about m43 in past tense. They have a huge market share, growing. People buy this because they don't want to carry around big cameras. With those cameras you have an attractive size combined with good quality. Those users buy the original lenses and don't think about crop factor. Why should they build a FF camera with a bigger body and bigger lenses when customers want it small?
fstops
-
For the sake of argument, if you have a M4/3 camera or lens, try to put them up for sale in your local classified.
The reason I say this is because my friend had a hard time selling a Panasonic GF2 with its 14-42mm kit lens, two batteries, all in the original box with everything in excellent condition for $200!
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
We are mixing a couple of ideas here, methinks.
There looks to be a rich future in digital cameras based on the micro 4/3 standard. I have a fairly basic Panasonic one, and while it is not as flexible as my D700, it is far more convenient, and the results are indistinguishable in most cases. I expect that if it takes off as it could, Nikon would shift away from its proprietary Nikon 1 standard. The difference between an EVF and a rear panel display is just implementation rather than real function. My Panasonic only has a rear panel display, and I think I like it because of the touch screen stuff it can do. This technology is doing good things for the photographer.
The original question is about a Nikon digital rangefinder camera, and I'm afraid I just don't see the market for it. A Leica M9 with a lens will set you back something close to $10,000. For this you get a beautifully crafted piece of machinery (but not as much as, say, an M3), which provides nowhere near the flexibility or general purpose usability of a DSLR, but gives you the ability to use extremely expensive lenses based on sixty year old designs.
The CV Bessas have shown that there is still a small but viable market of photographic Luddites who are willing to sacrifice practicality for the enjoyment of using a rangefinder camera. People like us on RFF, that is. Willingness to pay a fortune for a limited production digital RF camera narrows the market to extremely well-heeled photographic Luddites who nevertheless want the latest imaging technology. I meet two of the above three criteria. No prize for guessing which two.
One of the few places in the world where such people can be found is on RFF, so I expect my remarks would be considered heretical by some, but there it is. In the meantime, if I am really serious about getting results, I will use my D700. If I want to have fun, and feel like Cartier-Bresson, I will probably use my Leica IIIB, my Nikon SP, or some funky old Russki.
Cheers,
Dez
There looks to be a rich future in digital cameras based on the micro 4/3 standard. I have a fairly basic Panasonic one, and while it is not as flexible as my D700, it is far more convenient, and the results are indistinguishable in most cases. I expect that if it takes off as it could, Nikon would shift away from its proprietary Nikon 1 standard. The difference between an EVF and a rear panel display is just implementation rather than real function. My Panasonic only has a rear panel display, and I think I like it because of the touch screen stuff it can do. This technology is doing good things for the photographer.
The original question is about a Nikon digital rangefinder camera, and I'm afraid I just don't see the market for it. A Leica M9 with a lens will set you back something close to $10,000. For this you get a beautifully crafted piece of machinery (but not as much as, say, an M3), which provides nowhere near the flexibility or general purpose usability of a DSLR, but gives you the ability to use extremely expensive lenses based on sixty year old designs.
The CV Bessas have shown that there is still a small but viable market of photographic Luddites who are willing to sacrifice practicality for the enjoyment of using a rangefinder camera. People like us on RFF, that is. Willingness to pay a fortune for a limited production digital RF camera narrows the market to extremely well-heeled photographic Luddites who nevertheless want the latest imaging technology. I meet two of the above three criteria. No prize for guessing which two.
One of the few places in the world where such people can be found is on RFF, so I expect my remarks would be considered heretical by some, but there it is. In the meantime, if I am really serious about getting results, I will use my D700. If I want to have fun, and feel like Cartier-Bresson, I will probably use my Leica IIIB, my Nikon SP, or some funky old Russki.
Cheers,
Dez
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is not a matter of M4/3, but of attempting to sell a outdated camera in a rapidly evolving segment - in EVIL in general, a year is enough for a very popular camera to be two full generations and one major technical evolution behind the latest and greatest.
bugmenot
Well-known
For the sake of what argument, exactly? The fact that there is a growing mirrorless market, or the fact that you can't sell a 2 years old m4/3 camera at a good price on the used market?
I cannot comprehend why the market value or resale value of cameras have anything to do with trends of photography ... So because my NEX-5N might be worth $200 in mid 2013, the camera, the lenses and the concept is merely a fad? You speak of gear fetish and gearheads, yet you gauge the value and spread of a new photographic platform based on resale values.
fstops
-
The Gf2 is not like cell-phone quality compared to latest M4/3 cameras, but the $200 was for the kit lens included, which means that M4/3 lenses are as useless as their bodies because the format has no future.
Future. the is the important word when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras and lenses.
Going back to the topic. Nikon Mirroless actually does have a future because it take Nikon lenses with an adopter and can work as a superzoom with very fast AF in the case of AFS lenses.
Nikon is not a rip off company and that is a very rare thing today.
Future. the is the important word when it comes to interchangeable lens cameras and lenses.
Going back to the topic. Nikon Mirroless actually does have a future because it take Nikon lenses with an adopter and can work as a superzoom with very fast AF in the case of AFS lenses.
Nikon is not a rip off company and that is a very rare thing today.
furcafe
Veteran
They did produce the S3 2000 & SP 2005 & are a Japanese company, after all, so they are not entirely immune to the "gear fetishist"/"Luddite" market.
bugmenot
Well-known
Wow ... I won't even entertain that with a response or counter argument ... there will be plenty of others around to tear it apart, or ignore it all together.
You are basing your entire fortune telling and "prophecies" of future success based on used prices. That's just sad. Dismissing entire camera and lens systems due to how much they sell ... *sigh*
Digital Rangefinder by Nikon would be possible, given they have released two actually new RF bodies and lenses in the last decade. Nikon just needs proof that such a market exists and is profitable. Otherwise, what's the point of cutting into their own DSLR sales? At least that's how Nikon is thinking.
Archlich
Well-known
Let's face it..how much the $4500 (2006 dollar) M8 is going for now? How much money is sunk into THAT?
Blame digital, not the system. But since it's inevitable, why bother at all?
fstops
-
There was a time, not so long ago that M8 and RD-1 were the only game in town, if you wanted to shoot "street" in the classic "RF style" and in digital. People were saying if there could only be a digital RF they will suddenly be able to make shots they never dreamed of otherwise.
Then there was M9, X100, Sony Nex-7 and Xpro1 (and M8 and RD-1). Not to mention many M4/3 with EVF that could replicate the style of discreet street shooting.
What was the outcome? Did the quality of images on the flicker and the like went up high? Did new artist emerge that give a new breath of life to street photography? Did any MOMA exhibition contained work done by any of these cameras?
What happened was that people who bought the X100, begun to "wish" if it was only possible to have a wideangle on this. People who shot M9 wished if only they could shoot at higher ISO, people who shot M4/3 wished if only they have a bigger sensor...
And the comedy continues today... Wish Nikon brought a DRF. Nothing will change if even Nikon stoops low and joins the race. There will be still more to "wish".
How about we stop all these "wish" and "hope" stuff and go out to find out our photographic capabilities. I can assure based on personal experience that most will be coming back home feeling more bad about themselves than their camera.
There will never be a perfect camera, there will always be something better around the corner or at a higher price.
Then there was M9, X100, Sony Nex-7 and Xpro1 (and M8 and RD-1). Not to mention many M4/3 with EVF that could replicate the style of discreet street shooting.
What was the outcome? Did the quality of images on the flicker and the like went up high? Did new artist emerge that give a new breath of life to street photography? Did any MOMA exhibition contained work done by any of these cameras?
What happened was that people who bought the X100, begun to "wish" if it was only possible to have a wideangle on this. People who shot M9 wished if only they could shoot at higher ISO, people who shot M4/3 wished if only they have a bigger sensor...
And the comedy continues today... Wish Nikon brought a DRF. Nothing will change if even Nikon stoops low and joins the race. There will be still more to "wish".
How about we stop all these "wish" and "hope" stuff and go out to find out our photographic capabilities. I can assure based on personal experience that most will be coming back home feeling more bad about themselves than their camera.
There will never be a perfect camera, there will always be something better around the corner or at a higher price.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Hmmm....somethin' tells me MFT won't "fade away"...fact is, it's likely the wave of the future...kinda like the "full-frame" 35mm film format was 90 years ago or so...and I'll bet people called that a fad, too.
Said it before: the progress of technology makes cameras progressively smaller , lighter and more efficient. Ditto with the sensors--MFT sensors will soon, if they are not already doing so--give resolution just as good, or better than, a so-called "full-frame" sensor. Then it will likely be the "full-frame sensor" which fades away. After "full-frame" is just an anachronistic notion based on the size of the 35mm negative.
All right, I'll split now. You can get back to your regularly scheduled thread...
fstops
-
That makes no sense.
willie_901
Veteran
A single sample about a camera/lens sale in one marketing channel is not sufficient information to evaluate the long-term prospects for the world-wide M4/3 market segment.
fstops
-
If a friend comes to you and asks if they should get into M4/3 system with a body and some lenses, what would be your advice?
Btw, in this Photokina, the word M4/3 is almost not used by even its sellers. They're using compact systems and so on instead.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Well, I 'm sorry you can't understand it. Makes sense to me and a whole raft of MFT users, as well as anyone who thinks about where cameras are going. I just think you're totally off-base in being so dismissive of MFT.
But I'll bet that 90 years ago or so, you would've probably been saying, "The Leica is a fad! A fad, I tell you! NOTHING will take the place of the view camera!"