Nikon D500 fx announced

D500 is no doubt capable camera, but like some, am also bit surprised it came out now. I thought (hoped) full frame on smaller body than D610 would be their next move.
 
Why are you surprised by the D500? With Canon releasing the 7D II over a year ago, this camera was needed. One area Sony's mirrorless options can't compete is wildlife/birding/plane spotting - loosing marketshare to Canon here could be catastrophic for Nikon. Even if a lot of people thought Nikon abandoned the upper class APS-C camera, I don't think they could rely on the D7200 to compete with the Canon.

I can't see the market for a smaller full frame camera. Basically Nikon has a four tier full frame offering: entry-level D610, mid-range D750, semi-pro D810 and the full pro D5. I don't think there is room for a smaller full frame camera - also, such a camera would compete with the Sony A7 series and I don't think a smaller F-mount can compete with that.
 
jsrockit said:
Why not...?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Plus couple other why's for the rest of those "catastrophic" points.

IMO smaller full frame SLR would make perfect sense market wise, but guess Canikon are keeping this option in reserve for time when competition with mirrorless gets more dire.
 
Why? Because a smaller full frame DSLR would be larger then a full frame mirrorless camera and I can't see any advantage of a DSLR over mirrorless for the kind of photography most people would use a camera like that for. Can you? I consider the D610 (or Canon 6D) to be small enough, maybe they can shave a little off the D610 here or there, but a separate smaller full frame camera, well, I don't see a huge market for it.

Also, Canon did it with crop: Canon EOS 100D. As far as I can see, not a huge success.

@jarsky: what do you mean by "Plus couple other why's for the rest of those "catastrophic" points."? I just stated one catastrophic point - maybe the term "catastrophic" is exaggerated, but it seems clear to me that Nikon isn't in a position to loose their position in a major market for them. As long as Canon only had the 7D, the D300s was good enough, but with the introduction of the Canon 7D II Nikon had nothing to compete with it. The Nikon 200-500/5.6 was already foreshadowing the importance to Nikon of the sports/wildlife/plane market. To me this is so obvious that I'm surprised people don't see it.

Edit: even if there is a market for a smaller full frame camera, a sports/wildlife/plane camera is much more important to Nikon - you may want something different, but that doesn't make it sensible to Nikon.
 
jarski said:
IMO smaller full frame SLR would make perfect sense market wise, but guess Canikon are keeping this option in reserve for time when competition with mirrorless gets more dire.
Click to expand...
Yes, probably.

Also, a smaller full frame DSLR with fewer buttons and a more sleek design would imply that it's here to get married with lenses sharing the same philosophy.

And, contraringly to Leica, Nikon has given up with their manual focus lenses. So, fitting huge AF-S lenses (were they zooms or primes, they're all way larger and bulkier than their Ai-S siblings) on a smaller full frame DSLR would sound a bit odd.

The D750 (being a bit smaller than the D610 already) is small enough IMO. The D750 cons rather are some questionable choices from Nikon (no rugged mode-ISO-drive knob any longer, no round eyepiece with eyepiece shutter and accepting the DK-17M lupe, no PC flash socket, finder magnification and eyepoint still very questionable when compared with, say, what the old F801s offered...).

Nikon, please bring some refinements to the D750 so that the possible D750s gets closer to the D500 than to the D7200 and you will market something which may be the reference DSLR for a decade, because the 24MP FX sensor is something really good... :angel:
 
Yawn. . .

What is the point of a cropped-frame camera when it's about the same size and weight as one with a full-frame sensor? The comparison of crop-frame to a 35mm film camera and full-frame to medium format just doesn't hold up. Put a Nikon FM and a Pentax 6x7 side-by-side and see how that analogy works for you!
 
jschrader said:
Interesting point.
Is that how you try to make sense of their politics or do you have inside knowledge?
Click to expand...

I confess I'm inferring a lot based on the writings of Thom Hogan and experience with how other large bureaucratic organization coped with rapid changes in technology. The demise of DVD rental shops, CD music sales and Blackberry phones are just a few examples of how perfect sound businesses did themselves in by refusing to adapt their business models to rapidly evolving technologies.

Consider the financial resources Sears and Roebuck had in the early 1990s. Now think about how they could have become even bigger than Amazon. All they had to do was transfer their home retail business from printed catalogs to web-based purchasing. How come they didn't do that?

I realize hindsight is always 20:20. But Nikon's behavior is consistent with a company that resists change and does not understand the modern consumer.

Leica, and even Fujifilm, quickly acknowledge product issues and fix them as soon as is practical. Look how long Nikon dug in about the D600 oil splatter issue. In fact it was only when a series class-action law suits were being readied that Nikon decided to come clean and "do the right thing"™. Nikon either didn't care or didn't realize the negative impact of social media (including camera forums) on their reputation.

Anyway, if someone has hypotheses about Nikon's decisions that are more compatible than mine with how Nikon actually behaved, I will change my mind.

"The way we always view cannibalization is that we'd prefer to do it than have someone else do it.", Tim Cook
 
Dave Jenkins said:
Yawn. . .
What is the point of a cropped-frame camera when it's about the same size and weight as one with a full-frame sensor?
Click to expand...

And it contains the same processor, autofocus at the SOTA etc as well, just like the flagship full frame. I wonder if it could possibly be that it also happens to be a third of the price of the full frame flagship camera?
At that price point it's never in a million years going to sell by the shed load :cool:
 
Addy101 said:
@jarsky: what do you mean by "Plus couple other why's for the rest of those "catastrophic" points."? I just stated one catastrophic point ...
Click to expand...

Yes guess I tried to compress too much into one sentence. But we have bit different view what should be obvious and what done. Am still having my old D200 and sometimes even use it still, so am not disappointed of D500, just surprised it at this stage. Even Nikons own press release gives a hint that bringing new model into this series wasn't in their priorities for a good while.
 
This is a great camera for sport and wild life photographers. Really good autofocus that covers most of the sensor, great iso performance, fast frame rate and large buffer. Rugged body and weather sealed.
 
doolittle said:
This is a great camera for sport and wild life photographers. Really good autofocus that covers most of the sensor, great iso performance, fast frame rate and large buffer. Rugged body and weather sealed.
Click to expand...

Yes. Moreover, put a 24MP FX sensor in it and this is what the D750 should have been...

:confused:

I do agree with willie_901's thoughts about Nikon (having been a Nikonian and very careful about everything they made and did for now more than 30 years, I cannot agree more).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom