Nikon in Dire Straits

Peter C. said:
I get that for casual/vacation use you can't beat a phone. Who really wants to lug around an big expensive gear that can be stolen the moment it's out of your sight. But for creative professionals I find it attractive to be able to use your phone as an interface to your camera. All the good gimbals are starting to do it. Instead of buying an expensive dedicated field monitor you use your phone. Imagine being able to setup profiles on a phone app that you could easily access and customize at a moments notice instead of digging the 1980's non touch screen interface. Let alone having to view their terrible low resolution lcd.
Click to expand...

Check out a Pocket 4K/6K if you ever have a chance/at B&H. Camera companies don't need a phone (although many let you use one to control their cameras)...anyone with the knowledge, desire can make a menu to function like Apple's (or whomever else makes good phones).
 
Paul F said:
If a company makes electronics, going from one type of product to another is easy. Nikon can easily get into the phone market. Can you imagine Nikon or ... or even Red. If either of those camera companies made a phone .... .............. ............................ oh, never mind.
Click to expand...

I bet RED could make a wicked phone... And I bet they'd even give the phone customers a discount on a future RED camera purchase to say "Thank You", too.
 
Run&Gun said:
I hate the ergonomics of Sony still cameras for shooting stills. They are tiny rectangles with a few buttons. Even the Canon R5, while on a completely different plane ergonomically, is still a little on the small side(at least it looks that way, I haven't shot with one, yet). Just because you can do something(like make cameras impossibly small), doesn't mean you necessarily should. Humans are still holding these in their hands and using them(at least for now)....
Click to expand...
Which doesn't stop six billion people from using their smartphones for photography.

As to markets, ARRI generates (roughly) $200,000,000 annually with their camera sales. At $50,000 wholesale average, it's about 4,000 units. But the lower tier pro is pretty hot now with A7SIII, C70, FX-6 and so on. As the video pyramid expands, it expands at the bottom more and a sub-$10,000 cameras are good enough now to get a lot of work.

Nikon, however, has shunned this market. As had Olympus.
 
NorBro said:
Actually already involved in a bunch of stuff (there are also other links on that page):

https://www.nikon.com/about/technology/product/index.htm
Click to expand...
Some of those businesses are in trouble too.

In sports optics, they made a statement with the astounding WX binoculars (at $7k), but they’ve been driven out of the lucrative high-end birdwatching market by Swarovski, Leica, and Zeiss while simultaneously getting their heels nipped by Chinese brands with ambition. That’s not a great position to be in.

In lithography, Intel has been Nikon’s sole big customer for years. And now Intel is in “dire straits” too and reducing chip production. The Dutch company ASML (using Zeiss optics) was the only one to get extreme ultraviolet lithography working, needed for even smaller chip structures (the Apple M1 is built with this tech). Partly because of that, ASML now has more market share than Nikon and Canon combined, not to mention the lion’s share of the profit. Relevant article: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Co...form-to-reduce-reliance-on-key-customer-Intel

I think Nikon can yet turn things around, at least in cameras, but they need to nail their marketing, by which I mean they need to make exactly the products that people want. And like all camera companies, they need to become right-sized for the new reality while finding new markets … before they go broke.
 
Run&Gun said:
I hate the ergonomics of Sony still cameras for shooting stills. They are tiny rectangles with a few buttons. Even the Canon R5, while on a completely different plane ergonomically, is still a little on the small side(at least it looks that way, I haven't shot with one, yet). Just because you can do something(like make cameras impossibly small), doesn't mean you necessarily should. Humans are still holding these in their hands and using them(at least for now).

If all you're doing is putting an a7 on a gimbal to shoot video, that's fine. But holding it for even moderately extended periods to actually shoot stills... I bet not a one of the designers ever actually did.
Click to expand...

I'd have missed this post had DLD not quoted you. I 100% agree. Sony may have needed that shape when they started, since mirrorless was considered the "compact" alternative to the premium DSLR models. But now, the A7s3 have a fairly full grip, but somehow no where near the comfort and ease of operation of the Canon R even. I've been using Sony A7 series cameras since about 2014, and the Canon R5 I tried once, and it still felt better!

Panasonic did alright with the shape of the S1H, but I am still uncertain about the button layout.
 
DLD said:
Which doesn't stop six billion people from using their smartphones for photography.

As to markets, ARRI generates (roughly) $200,000,000 annually with their camera sales. At $50,000 wholesale average, it's about 4,000 units. But the lower tier pro is pretty hot now with A7SIII, C70, FX-6 and so on. As the video pyramid expands, it expands at the bottom more and a sub-$10,000 cameras are good enough now to get a lot of work.

Nikon, however, has shunned this market. As had Olympus.
Click to expand...

Snapping off a picture of your food to send to your friends or your kids to send to your family is much different than holding a camera for extended periods of time shooting something like sports, which is what I was referring to. As professionals we have needs and wants that most consumers do not(or are not willing to pay for, that we are). I’ve taken way more pictures with my cell phone over the last few years than I have a dslr, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are certain things I’d much rather shoot with a “dslr style” body and lens.
 
James0b57 said:
I'd have missed this post had DLD not quoted you. I 100% agree. Sony may have needed that shape when they started, since mirrorless was considered the "compact" alternative to the premium DSLR models. But now, the A7s3 have a fairly full grip, but somehow no where near the comfort and ease of operation of the Canon R even. I've been using Sony A7 series cameras since about 2014, and the Canon R5 I tried once, and it still felt better!

Panasonic did alright with the shape of the S1H, but I am still uncertain about the button layout.
Click to expand...

Yep... You still need a certain size to comfortably and securely hold something. How many times have you dropped your cell phone? I’ve lost count, myself(and actually have a cracked screen protector right now that I need to replace. 2nd one on this phone). How many times have you dropped a dslr while shooting with it? Me? Never.
 
Run&Gun said:
Snapping off a picture of your food
Click to expand...

Paul (I work with) takes many 'pro' pictures on his phone. Simply its possible to distribute them instantly. Sure he's using his DSLR (1dx) as well but for 'social' (insta facebook) its all about speed and the ability to text it to a client who then shares on the client account.
Twatter: https://twitter.com/EnlightenedLx/status/1315784666880843777?s=20

Social and Zoom are real - thats why its such a downer the nikon utility doesnt work (first time) with Zoom. If it doesnt work with Zoom nikon are just not being serious or understanding what professionals are being asked to do.

And that is a big fail.
 
Run&Gun said:
Snapping off a picture of your food to send to your friends or your kids to send to your family is much different than holding a camera for extended periods of time shooting something like sports, which is what I was referring to...
Click to expand...
And I wasn't. Seriously. We're talking an A-6000 series APS-C with a pancake, on all-automatic where all one really needs is a shutter button. Which is still an improvement over the older smartphones that don't have a high pixel count or a (periscope) zoom.

BTW, I told this story before . A friend was looking for a small camera that would produce pictures better than his iPhone. I recommended Sony's A 6100 or 6400 with a 16-50mm pancake. And explained that, if at some point, he wants reach, he can simply buy an E-mount zoom. And, should he ever want to upgrade the hardware, his lenses would still be usable on a full frame Sony camera going forward.

He responded by purchasing a fixed mount Fuji APS-C. Which is small and does take nice pictures. If you like the 25mm fixed lens (one can also buy a 50mm addition for some $350).

Then he added, "My next camera is going to be another iPhone". Which is a real ecosystem problem.
 
My pupil likes her a7riii's and she likes small primes if she can use them (sony 55 1.8 for wxample). I think that the design seems to work well for feminine hands with narrower, tapered fingers. At least the larger grip they have now is more approachable than the sorry excuse they had before.

But on a gimbal, I'm not holding the camera. On a tripod, hand is on the panhandle and probably the lens barrel. For going handheld with it, you may be rigging a cage with a side handle and a top handle.

Similar goes for a regular video camera, no? It's got a top handle that screws in and a side handle mounted by rosette or whatever. How many of us are actually grabbing the box and not an attachment?

Sure, photo cameras are designed to be held bare by photographers, so it's tempting to do so. But other than lacking built-in mounts for handles, I dont think they're at a tremendous disadvantage.

The dinky buttons, on the other hand, are a let down for thick fingers. But I have ISO, aperture and white balance all dialed in to wheels that are easy to operate. So the nuisance of dinky buttons is relegated to secondary and tertiary functions.

I'm not saying that shooting video with a mirrorless camera is perfect, just that it's workable
 
Peter C. said:
I had this idea when I was in the shower this moring. Imagine if Nikon only did what they were good at the body and lens, then on the back of the camera you insert your phone into an adapter plate, that interfaces with the camera. You use the phone's great touch screen and interface to control the camera and view your images.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about the reverse - an interface housing that you plug your phone into. The phone is still the camera, but you hook it into the middle a DSLR-esque skeleton and not you've got an ergonomic handgrip with shutter button, a flash sync port, hot shoe mount etc. Probably also a place to easily attach lenses. Moment and companies like that already do a simple case just for the lens attachment part
 
ahalpert said:
I've been thinking about the reverse - an interface housing that you plug your phone into. The phone is still the camera, but you hook it into the middle a DSLR-esque skeleton and not you've got an ergonomic handgrip with shutter button, a flash sync port, hot shoe mount etc. Probably also a place to easily attach lenses. Moment and companies like that already do a simple case just for the lens attachment part
Click to expand...
They've been doing that for a while and it's a bit ridiculous trying to turn a phone into a professional camera by putting the phone into rig and attaching specialized lenses that screw into a special case. The phone's best features are it's small portable, easy to use, beautiful high res screen, touch screen interface, and the flexibility of using the best app to control the device. On the camera side you have a large sensor, professional lenses and body.

It depends on what you're trying to achieve. Even though I love my “shower” idea it would have a very limited audience. Most consumers are going to be happy using their phone as is and most pros will want a standard camera.
 
Last edited:
BTW, Photokina has been suspended and not just for 2021 but for infinite eternity. In other words, "Damen und Herren, auf Wiedersehen. Bis nie".
 
puredrifting said:
I read that. Wow, a 70 year old trade show is no more. Sad really.
Click to expand...

Man that's massive. I've been to it twice. It was enormous, on a NAB, IBC scale. It wasn't just stills gear. All the big video manufactures, Pana, Sony, JVC, Ikegami, Hitachi, Fujnon, Canon et all were there. To see it go is really a sign of the times... sadly.

Chris Young
 
Photokina was well on its way out before the pandemic. It was struggling before that, trying to revamp itself in 2017. Major manufacturers were no longer exhibiting. From Petapixel:

""In 2018, Photokina announced that the 2019 edition would be canceled to give companies the time to “further develop the new concept for photokina." In 2019 [pre-pandemic], major brands including Nikon, Leica, Olympus, and Fujifilm announced they would not be attending Photokina 2020""
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top