Will Kodak have a stand @ The 2014 Photokina

donaldejose

JJ_SO: I am saying the viewing need not be limited to the LCD on the back. A small high def LCD can also be placed in the position of the normal OVF. No pentaprism needed. Yes, you would be viewing "live view" in the EVF. DSLM for digital single lens mirrorless in place of DSLR?

JJ_SO

@WestEndBoy Although I don't own a 1 camera, but I don't think your statement "However, a Nikon 1 camera is a low technical quality system with less demanding customers that is more likely to tolerate adapters." is meeting the reality. This is no cheap system, lower than DX. Technically it's very demanding and I'd say the tolerances for those small cameras have to be tighter.

The mount / adapter is a critical thing, I agree. I just disagree that the Pro's would be the first jumping on the FX mirrorless train, they have some prejudices (slow AF, low-res finder, not enough power, not rugged enough) and some of this are not only prejudices.

The next question is how much advantage a mirrorless could gibe it's owner about highly evolved DSLRs? Would anybody give up his new D4s for a fresh mirrorless? Maybe not. Which Pro gave up his F5 for a DSLR?

And what could be the advantages of mirrorless for Pro's? Weight and size? While the rest of the bags contains several dozen pounds of glass? I doubt that. Otherwise a lot of Pro's would already run for A7, A7R, A7S which are pretty cool - and pretty lonesome, lenswise.

A mirrorless FX (or other sensor size, why not?) would have a lot of chances and options for starting a new concept. I just don't think, Nikon is able to turn the photographic world upside down. As Sigma with their Foveon sensor, Ricoh with their lens+sensor mounted to a body system, Lytro, even Sony with their old bridge cameras F505 ... F828 brought new things while Nikon is always on the more conservative side. Now, who remains to be here after decades? Conservative side is no bad thing.

manhattanboy

As Sigma with their Foveon sensor, Ricoh with their lens+sensor mounted to a body system, Lytro, even Sony with their old bridge cameras F505 ... F828 brought new things while Nikon is always on the more conservative side. Now, who remains to be here after decades? Conservative side is no bad thing.

That's not necessarily the case. Kodak was conservative choosing to not run with "new" things and we all know how that ended.

One of Nikon's main problem is that they are overvaluing their brand. They think they are able to roll with Leica, etc. while they advertise with Ashton Kutcher in a fake jungle. If that doesn't scream luxury brand I don't know what does. /s

Nikon would do a lot better to lower prices; everyone is hunting whales for all sorts of products these days, and I seriously doubt Nikon can continue at their current production values targeting whales alone. If mirrorless allows for decreased prices as Thom notes, then Nikon should be full steam ahead with mirrorless products that directly compete with their current DSLRs. Nikon needs to stop worrying about a serious mirrorless camera cannibalizing DSLR sales. Does anyone think Apple gave 2 sh!ts that their iPad was cannibalizing their laptop sales? No because it took away everyone's laptop sales while generating tremendous revenue and ecosystem entrapment. Nikon would be smart to follow that game plan.

heartyfisher

The only real physical length advantage of a Mirrorless specific lense is with lenses that are less than 58mm focal length. So for many current lenses an Adapter would not really make too much of a difference in length of the whole system length. eg I don't think a 70-200 Mirrorless will be any shorter and in fact would probably be longer physically than the current version. so there are only really a handful of lenses that would benefit physically from being made mirrorless specific. the first that comes to mind would be a 24-70 VR

Msmoto

When we have a sensor which works like an ISO 25 film, that is the "grains" of the film are individuals pixels, who many million or billion this is I have no idea, but that they are as sensitive to light from all angles as the grains in a film base, then we will have the near perfect recording surface and can benefit from a camera body which has a significantly shorter flange to sensor dimension. My understanding is, that with current technology, the individual pixels on a sensor have difficulty with acute angles of the light and this may be a limiting factor in the design off a new camera, a hurdle which possibly Nikon, Canon, and others are looking closely at.

Ideally, the avoidance of the "retro focus" design of current DSLR lenses required to avoid colliding with the mirror as it moves from the light path might produce higher resolution optics with less distortion, CA, and vignetting.

And, this is what I would like from Nikon…..

Photobug

IMHO size matters. I so hope the new D7XX has a larger body than the D610. I don't have big hands but the D7100 is just a tad small. I really expect a bigger body and can't wait to see what new features will be incorporated. Been falling the discussion and I just do not expect to see a mirrorless DSLR. Any way that is my SME input.

NSXTypeR

I was going to post a new thread until I saw this one.

I expect a new D700 style FX camera, but I want a D300s style DX successor- anything to make us feel that Nikon cares about DX at all.

However, there is a third option, as seen in this video below- that Nikon goes absolutely bonkers. Perhaps they could drop the flange length on the Nikon mount and make a new dedicated mirrorless camera, whether it be DX or FX.


These options are discussed below in the video.

haroldp

Geez guys, calm yourselves down a bit! "Booth babes" are just promotional models. They are all the models that aren't good enough to do even catalog work, let alone editorials and advertising.

Having run companies that are active at trade shows, I never underestimate the importance of booth babes and have employed many myself.

When there are 4,000 assorted programmer types on the floor, some eye candy brightens the day.

They also like to pose.

... H

haroldp

My understanding is, that with current technology, the individual pixels on a sensor have difficulty with acute angles of the light and this may be a limiting factor in the design off a new camera, a hurdle which possibly Nikon, Canon, and others are looking closely at.

Ideally, the avoidance of the "retro focus" design of current DSLR lenses required to avoid colliding with the mirror as it moves from the light path might produce higher resolution optics with less distortion, CA, and vignetting.

And, this is what I would like from Nikon…..

@Msmoto
You are correct.

Even Leica is retro focus on their recent wide angle lenses for precisely the reasons you articulated.

Moving the cover glass / filter 2 or 3mm further forward of the sensor in a mirror less would greatly alleviate 'dirt' issues.

The feature that would definitely get my attention (and money) is adding sensor-based stabilization so that my excellent non- VR lnses would benefit.

Since Nikon use Sony sensors which already have this, it is feasible, and could be set so that if a VR lens is mounted, it would use lens stabilization, and revert to sensor stabilization when a non VR lens is mounted.

....... H

Sports

The feature that would definitely get my attention (and money) is adding sensor-based stabilization so that my excellent non- VR lnses would benefit.

- This could cause higher price tags on quite a few non-VR lenses on E-Bay :>
If the big Nikon news at Photokina this year is the "action camera" then a new kind of VR would not be essential, and it's probably not the best product for introducing such a new technology.
I guess, it could be something to hope for in the next D8x0 body.

richiero

Rumor has it that the new camera will be Full Frame. But if the rumor is wrong, the new camera could be the long awaited replacement for the D300s (the D9300??). Such a replacement would be an "action camera" Just saying.

Photobug

Rumor has it that the new camera will be Full Frame. But if the rumor is wrong, the new camera could be the long awaited replacement for the D300s (the D9300??). Such a replacement would be an "action camera" Just saying.

Unfortunately it's a full frame camera positioned between the D610 and D810.

I have long given up on a D400 to replace the D300s. Then two months ago came the rumor of the D9300 and then the rumor mill dried up. Right now so looking forward to see the new D7XX.

Sports

I'm expecting the FX that was rumored, but when neither a DX or an FX "action" has actually appeared, it's hard to tell if it'll be none, one, or both of them. Or something completely different.
I'm still thinking it's pretty stupid by Nikon if the DON'T make a DX version of the D810 (or a DX version of the rumored D7x0). They obviously WANT to sell more, and they want to reduce cost. So why not re-use when things work? Why not a "line" of bodies instead of all those different drops? Why do they insist on building "seperate" camera models from all those different directions? Could be, that this approach is partly to blame for the recent quality issues.

spraynpray

@Sports: Like most companies, they have finite resources and they have - rightly or wrongly in some peoples eyes - decided that FX is where the profit is at. A lot of posters seem to forget they are a company with commercial pressures on them just like any other and given the massive changes that are going on it their area of commerce, they are under huge pressure to get it right at the moment. IMHO.

EDIT: Also, compare the range of DX with FX. FX you have an entry level and then you're into D810/D4s - kind of extreme really! A D710 with good AF, proper distribution of focus points, enough MP (24) and decent fps will round out the range really well. The D610 is a hell of an entry level camera, but the huge files of the D810 are not everybody's cup of tea.

THEN they can do the D400!

sevencrossing

,but the huge files of the D810 are not everybody's cup of tea.

given the massive price drop in computers with a 2 TB hard drive, i7 and 16 GB of ram, I am surprised this is still issue

Msmoto

As to the file size of the D8XX, I have seen a bit more tie to get the files to the computer, but, upon editing and deleting the files I do not wish to keep, there really is no issue regarding file size, as Sevencrossing has pointed out. And, my experience is comparing the D4 with the D8XX.

spraynpray

,but the huge files of the D810 are not everybody's cup of tea.
given the massive price drop in computers with a 2 TB hard drive, i7 and 16 GB of ram, I am surprised this is still issue

When one actually has a fairly decent computer which handles 24MP ok, the fact that a new i7 doesn't cost as much as it once did doesn't do anything except add a little less to the cost of buying the D800/E/D810. Also, ignoring the boast factor, I don't think there are any great gains except the ability to blow up prints HUGE between the D810's 36MP sensor and the D610's 24MP sensor.

donaldejose

"Also, ignoring the boast factor, I don't think there are any great gains except the ability to blow up prints HUGE between the D810's 36MP sensor and the D610's 24MP sensor."

I tend to agree. The difference between my D600 images and my D800 images seem to not appear until you are looking at them at huge sizes. I am not saying some DxOMark measurable differences are not there (94 vs 95-97). I am just saying the main difference seems to be that the D800 will print a little bit better at huge sizes which few people will ever print. 24mp FX (and 16mp FX) will be fine for all practical purposes. It is also possible (or probable) that a few improvements to a D7xx will result in a DxOMark score greater than 94 and into the D800-D810 territory of 95-97, further blurring the differences. I would be surprised with anyone who was not satisfied with 24mp unless they plan on printing murals.

sevencrossing

Most people, indeed, don't need 36 mp

Most people don't need a car that does over 100 mph and 0-60 in under 6 sec

but selling cameras, like selling cars, is not about what people need

donaldejose

I know when Nikon puts out its first 50mp FX sensor I will want one with the sharpest lenses available! Sure don't need it but it would be fun to see just how much detail it can capture.

Photobug

+1 @donaldejose. Well said.

sevencrossing

The new camera is meant to an "Action Camera"

By Action Camera, many people mean something like a Go Pro
A full frame Go Pro might be interesting

haroldp

As Sigma with their Foveon sensor, Ricoh with their lens+sensor mounted to a body system, Lytro, even Sony with their old bridge cameras F505 ... F828 brought new things while Nikon is always on the more conservative side. Now, who remains to be here after decades? Conservative side is no bad thing.

That's not necessarily the case. Kodak was conservative choosing to not run with "new" things and we all know how that ended.

That is not actually the case. Kodak was not at all conservative. They invented the Bayer digital sensor ( a contract for the US air force ) and until their demise, produced the highest quality sensors for Leica, Hasselblad etc. (and the Air Force).

Until about 2007/2008 they were also the worlds largest producers of digital cameras.

Kodak had a Nikon mount 14mp FX format DSLR in 2004, 4 years before Nikon had one, and Canon's was 11 mp at the time.

Kodak's business problem was that even if they produced and sold every digital camera in the world, it is still not enough recurring revenue to compensate the film / chemicals / Paper and processing / printing business.

IBM had a sinilar problem, all of the PC and minicomputer sales combined did not approach the profit margins of leasing mainframes and software.

IBM (and Lew Gerstner) devolved to 1/3 their size and is now mostly a consulting company (based on revenue).

Kodak had nowhere to go.

Regards ... H

manhattanboy

@haroldp I could not do even one tenth of what others have stated on this topic. Here is Thom's take:

It will become increasingly clear that Kodak's digital future is poor, thus their entire future outlook is poor. The signs are everywhere, actually. The overhyped 14n doesn't even use a Kodak-developed sensor nor a Kodak-developed body. If you're going to become a parts consolidator rather than an innovator (ala Dell in PCs), you'd better have some trick up your sleeve to lead the way. Kodak appears trickless. I'll temper that one small bit: Kodak's Photo Desk software is better than any other program coming with a DSLR these days, and facilitates a useful, clean workflow. The big splash Kodak made with the 14n at Photokina has now been wasted with non-delivery and by the sudden quietness of the product marketing arm. [At PMA Kodak announced that the camera has "shipped." Hmm. I think this was marketing talk for demo units were shipped to dealers. Still, it is nice to see the Kodak marketeers talking again. Moreover, their engineers really do seem to be making the Pro 14n perform better with each new firmware iteration. Is that enough? Probably not, but see my review for more thoughts on their marketing of this product.] Meanwhile, we still don't have Macintosh support for their latest dye sub printer, which shows that Kodak doesn't (fully) understand the installed base of serious digital camera users. Everywhere you look at Kodak's offerings and strategies, you see gaping holes, misguided decisionmaking, and lack of execution [That "disposable digital," for example. Kodak's version can't be developed at most one-hour photo locations; you get prints and a CD in two days. Compare that to Walgreen's disposable digital, which gives prints and CD back in 15 minutes at those locations.]. Kodak will not survive the digital transition, becoming just another Northeastern manufacturer that didn't understand the business it was in, didn't transition with its users, and ultimately falls into negative sales growth and unprofitability. No, the end game won't happen in 2003, but it will become clearer this year that the end game is approaching. [And as the end of the year comes to a close, Carl Icahn has moved in and purchased 7% of Kodak's stock. The buzz is that he believes that value of selling off Kodak's many businesses is worth more than the current stock price, and he's probably right. But splitting Kodak up is an almost sure way to put it out of business long-term, as it simply won't have the capitalization to compete. Meanwhile, Kodak's president has outlined a "digital future" for Kodak, cut the dividend to help pay for it (thus raising the ire of many of the shareholders and triggering Icahn's investment), and moved the digital team to Japan. Huh? This makes Rochester look even more vulnerable. Why would a digital photography company that puts its main R&D in Japan have headquarters in Rochester? I see most of the Kodak moves as being too little, too late. Their film sales are eroding rapidly, and their digital growth isn't fast enough to make up the difference. Compare Kodak's position to Nikon, whose Imaging division is already 80% digital in unit volume and even higher in sales volume.

This was back in 2003. They may of had the R&D and prelim products, but failed to capitalize on them as the market changed. When I say Kodak was "conservative," to me it means they reacted a little too late. Everyone's definition of "conservative" is a little different, so we are probably saying close to the same thing just thinking that it is different.

haroldp

@manhattanboy

Your points (and Thom's) are well taken and I agree with them.

What remains though is a company that saw it's mainline business being inevitably eroded and trying to get in front of it, but not knowing how.

In 2003 when Thom wrote this, the largest selling producer of digital cameras was Kodak.

Their problem was not conservatism, but not knowing how to execute. Their attempt to get ahead of cannibalizing their own business is actually remarkable in the annals of big business, even if it failed.

Having observed many companies facing disruptive technologies, the most common reaction is denial, and trying to delay by market power or legislation, and of course failing.

The bottom line is that Kodak was doomed whatever they did, if one combines the profit of Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony etc. in digital camera sales, it is a fraction of what Kodak's profit was in film / chemicals / Paper and processing / printing business.

IBM faced similar problems, If every PC, Mac and minicomputer were sold by IBM, it could not come close to mainframe profits.

In 1970-1995, I was a senior IT manager at very large financial companies, the typical IT budget profile was that half of the total IT expense budget was hardware, and IBM's margin on mainframes (including peripherals) was in the neighborhood of 35%.

I was recently the CTO of a Saas company (essentially outsourced IT) servicing over 600 hospitals, hardware of all types accounted for 4% of of our expense budget. At VLFC (very large financial company) it might be 6% (to support algo's and risk management). I am on the BOD of a Broker Dealer and that number is about right.

Margins on computing and digital camera hardware are small, and there is no residual tail. The most profitable item in digital photography is printer ink, and the trend toward online and cellphone / device viewing is eroding that.

Regards .... Harold


- See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3176/what-do-we-expect-from-nikon-photokina-#Item_106