Does anyone use Nikon anymore? Will you be surprised or no?

MrFotoFool

Having switched myself to Nikon (from Canon) mainly for the 500PF lens (but also for the D850 body), it surprises me that every wildlife shooter who can afford one does not jump to Nikon for the 500PF alone. I mean no one else offers anything like it. Perhaps if Nikon had them readily in stock instead of backordered for months they might have had more converts like me.

PB_PM

daveznspace said:

I will say I've noticed that Nikon and Canon shooters are becoming "friendlier" to each other and actually talking and hanging out in good spirits more... To which I'd like to give a big thank you to sony for bringing the rest of us together... I smell a noble peace prize in there lol.

You not seeing d850's blows my mind as I'm usually the lone guy without one.

Yes, it's nice to see people cooling off about this brand vs that brand stuff, and realizing that we are just fellow photographers.

As for the D850, I think what I see is in part because I mainly fall into the bird photography camp, and so a lot of people seem to want the DX crop, and the higher frame rate it provides, without needing the grip and EN-EL18 batteries. If I was starting wildlife shooting now, I'd likely go with the D500 too, but I've been shooting FX since I got a D700 (still my favorite Nikon camera to date, kind of regret selling it) years ago, and I have too much full frame glass to go with a DX body. Those were the days when the $7999 D3X with 24MP and a top ISO1600 was the high resolution king for anything that wasn't medium format. The D850 is a great camera, but there was something about the D3/D300/D700 era of semi-pro/pro bodies, they just got everything right that hasn't come together again since in terms of overall software and hardware quality. Likely just nostalgia, because I took a lot of my favorite images with the D700, but hey that just makes me human. The D850 is a lot closer than the D800/D810 were though.

When I was in a camera club I used to see a wider range of gear (yeah even the Pentax guys), but my scope is a little more limited now, the club thing got rather boring because it was all about competition, rather than enjoyment of shooting and learning new things.

richfisher

I don't think that Nikon is dead but the face a huge challenge going forward. They are far behind Sony and Canon (IMO). The D850 is a great camera but what is next at that level? What will grab the market's attention? They need to step up their game or perhaps join w/ Sony (I know heresies).

PB_PM

Sony doesn’t need Nikon, so I doubt that would happen.

photobunny

richfisher said:

I don't think that Nikon is dead but the face a huge challenge going forward. They are far behind Sony and Canon (IMO). The D850 is a great camera but what is next at that level? What will grab the market's attention? They need to step up their game or perhaps join w/ Sony (I know heresies).

Nikon is far behind Canon but trade blows with Sony quite well. If you took Canon out of the equation you have one company with 51% of the market and the other with 48%. However, if you think about gear in hands, Nikon dwarfs Sony and has a lot of customers out there they just need to tap with a compelling mirrorless body(the lenses are already ahead).

Give it a few years and we might see Sony struggling as both Canon and Nikon have a set of f/1.2 primes that Sony can't have at least not without some major engineering effort or changing their mount.

Now you and I may not care about these exotic lenses, but many do and it causes an effect where photographers see the new RF tilt-shift lens can autofocus and the new Nikon Z 600mm f/5.6 PF fits in a small backpack and suddenly Sony isn't so cool. Sony doesn't have DO/PF nor their own tilt shifts and f/1.2 lenses.

tc88

photobunny said:

Nikon dwarfs Sony and has a lot of customers out there they just need to tap with a compelling mirrorless body

There is something called moving average. That is always a lagging indicator. If Nikon had been able to tap into those previous customers, its market share wouldn't be where it is, and also not predicted to increase by the company itself.

photobunny said:

(the lenses are already ahead).

That is just not true. I know you may be talking about the trinity lens, but Sony's versions are also very highly rated. Besides Sony has a much broader lens selection in the mirrorless domain and it is actually its advantage right now. In the wide angles f/2.8 alone, Sony has 12-24 and 16-35 available. Nikon's 14-24 is only barely annouced. And there is nothing beyond 200 on Nikon's side either.

WestEndFoto

I cannot think of any advantage that Sony, Nikon or Canon have that is durable and pervasive enough to tilt the market overwhelmingly in their favor. Even inferior dynamic range and autofocus didn't tilt the market to far away from Canon. I think that is because most consumers are smarter than those of us on these forums - Canon's "inferiority" to Nikon was never more than a lame excuse not to take great pictures.

In fact, Sony's main advantage today (and it is not sensor or autofocus, because those are ephemeral differences) is lens selection. And that advantage is being neutralized. By the end of 2021, 95% of photographers will be able to get the lens they need (if not exactly what they want but when have we been able to get EXACTLY what we want) in any of the three systems - I think Nikon will be a little ahead of Canon on this because they have focussed more closely on the higher selling basics. But Canon is not far behind.

And by the end of 2021, 95% of the photographers will be able to get the bodies they need from Canon or Nikon. With the launch of the Z5 and the rumoured Z30, Nikon is almost there - do you think a Z8 or Z9 will be more than 5% of sales and one of them will likely be out in 2021. The RP fills the gap for Canon, but only just as it is very wanting next to the Z5. But Canon will fix that and fairly soon I think. It is certainly not a reason to jump ship to a competitor if you have a working Canon DSLR.

But what about Sony? Their only competition against the Z5 is two or three generations old. The A7c is not it. $400 more than the Z5 and an inferior stills camera - but superior video camera as that is its market. Sony better get its act together on a Z5 competitor.

Oh wait, Sony is behind...…..ergo...…

Sony is dying!!

WestEndFoto

It is all a theory. But the trouble with market data, with the possible and at best partial exception of stock price, is that it is a lagging indicator. You can't understand where something is going by looking at a lagging indicator. To do that, you need to understand the markets and what the SWAT analysis looks like for each of the players and then maybe market data fills in a few gaps. And nobody on this forum or likely even outside of Sony, Nikon or Canon really knows what those SWAT analyses look like. It would be fun to come up with one. I think that Thom understands what that might look like better than almost anyone outside of Sony, Nikon or Canon.

So yes, I wave my hand around speculating on where things might go - but it is or should be obvious that it is speculation and might be wrong.

But with lagging indicators - while they are correct, they are often wrong. As an experienced accountant and investor where lagging indicators are usually financial statements, I have my nose rubbed in that everyday.

tc88

WestEndFoto said:

But the trouble with market data, with the possible and at best partial exception of stock price, is that it is a lagging indicator. You can't understand where something is going by looking at a lagging indicator.

You see, you are discounting the data when it doesn't suit you without more reasonable data to present yourself. As I said, only your hand waving arguments.

Market data certainly can be used to validate your theory or your capability to project. Just look at what you predicted a year or two ago and see if they have panned out. Or make prediction now and see if you are right or wrong a year from now.

mhedges

The only long term advantage I see Sony having is in lens selection, and specifically the availability of cheaper third party options. That assumes there won't be 3P lenses for RF or Z but my guess is that Sigma and Tamron will both put out RF glass, and probably Z glass too, at some point. DSLR sales of course are tanking and that leaves them with only Sony (and L mount for Sigma). Which isn't a big enough market for them long term.

daveznspace

PB_PM said:

daveznspace said:

I will say I've noticed that Nikon and Canon shooters are becoming "friendlier" to each other and actually talking and hanging out in good spirits more... To which I'd like to give a big thank you to sony for bringing the rest of us together... I smell a noble peace prize in there lol.

You not seeing d850's blows my mind as I'm usually the lone guy without one.

Yes, it's nice to see people cooling off about this brand vs that brand stuff, and realizing that we are just fellow photographers.

As for the D850, I think what I see is in part because I mainly fall into the bird photography camp, and so a lot of people seem to want the DX crop, and the higher frame rate it provides, without needing the grip and EN-EL18 batteries. If I was starting wildlife shooting now, I'd likely go with the D500 too, but I've been shooting FX since I got a D700 (still my favorite Nikon camera to date, kind of regret selling it) years ago, and I have too much full frame glass to go with a DX body. Those were the days when the $7999 D3X with 24MP and a top ISO1600 was the high resolution king for anything that wasn't medium format. The D850 is a great camera, but there was something about the D3/D300/D700 era of semi-pro/pro bodies, they just got everything right that hasn't come together again since in terms of overall software and hardware quality. Likely just nostalgia, because I took a lot of my favorite images with the D700, but hey that just makes me human. The D850 is a lot closer than the D800/D810 were though.

When I was in a camera club I used to see a wider range of gear (yeah even the Pentax guys), but my scope is a little more limited now, the club thing got rather boring because it was all about competition, rather than enjoyment of shooting and learning new things.

I bought a slightly used D7100 for the trip and for birding. Where I am the birds aren't used to ppl at all and always just outta reach of my D750. I did find that while there I mostly used to D7100 except in low light or like on Mormon Row to get the extra width.

I fully agree on the D700! I hated it at first until I learned to use it and most of my fave pix (especially in Florida) are on that. It's too bad it mostly got damaged when I made the ultra terrible mistake of buying the 3lt tripod (aka junk) and it slid right off onto the concrete, occasionally it will work though.. F**kin 3lt! I've been fixing it, now does anyone here do repairs? I need to put a new top controller on it (you know the round one with ISO Qual and whatever..

I'm even going to extend the d3/d300/d700 and add an unlikely hero... the D90. I sold my d200 and a guy at BH talked me out of the d300 in favor of the D90 and there was something special about that camera.

For the consumers the D700 was epic, for Nikon it had to be a very hard lesson to learn, D3 sales must have fallen off a cliff.

Walking to the Bear I tried to incognito video the walk with my ipad and the video is on my ig where you can see a lot of the gear and the ppl with different brangs hanging out. And my bad, this older guy walking infront of me had a sony stap on, older though but I never saw him take pix, just stand in the road talking to ppl in cars as they passed.

I've noticed there's something about grizzlies that bring ppl together.

daveznspace

richfisher said:

I don't think that Nikon is dead but the face a huge challenge going forward. They are far behind Sony and Canon (IMO). The D850 is a great camera but what is next at that level? What will grab the market's attention? They need to step up their game or perhaps join w/ Sony (I know heresies).

Short term
Long term

Sony is the short term but the camera division was selling cameras so cheap they weren't making any money and as I understand it was losing money heavily and it's never broken even or made much profit. For a company like sony that won't end well. ANd didn't that guy who's buying up Sony stock and is almost the major shareholder give the camera division 2 years to start making a sh*t ton of money or else? I don't see Sony camera division making much if any money in that time. It's just a matter of "when". Sony's advertising and social media make them look a lot bigger than they are. Don't fooled or in a couple of years those that switched will have all this worthless gear. And be sure Japan won't let Nikon die.

Long term: Nikon and canon will roll on, they understand that most ppl don't need anything more than they currently have and can take their time and when they have a full line up and ppl are ready for a new camera they will move in masses. The only ones who care about most of this new stuff are just a small percentage of the ppl.

daveznspace

photobunny said:

richfisher said:

I don't think that Nikon is dead but the face a huge challenge going forward. They are far behind Sony and Canon (IMO). The D850 is a great camera but what is next at that level? What will grab the market's attention? They need to step up their game or perhaps join w/ Sony (I know heresies).

Nikon is far behind Canon but trade blows with Sony quite well. If you took Canon out of the equation you have one company with 51% of the market and the other with 48%. However, if you think about gear in hands, Nikon dwarfs Sony and has a lot of customers out there they just need to tap with a compelling mirrorless body(the lenses are already ahead).

Give it a few years and we might see Sony struggling as both Canon and Nikon have a set of f/1.2 primes that Sony can't have at least not without some major engineering effort or changing their mount.

Now you and I may not care about these exotic lenses, but many do and it causes an effect where photographers see the new RF tilt-shift lens can autofocus and the new Nikon Z 600mm f/5.6 PF fits in a small backpack and suddenly Sony isn't so cool. Sony doesn't have DO/PF nor their own tilt shifts and f/1.2 lenses.

"51% of the market and the other with 48%"
Isn't that only in Japan and only ff? The bread n butter is the cheap dx models.

daveznspace

tc88 said:

@WestEndFoto, sorry while I can see the reason behind some of your points, I trust market data much more than your hand waving arguments. You are free to monitor the data yourself and validate your theory or figure out what's wrong with it.

The charts we see aren't accurate for the thing that truly matters. Think about Apple vs m$ back when everyone was consumed with market share and what happened? Market share means squat when there are little or no profits and Sony wouldn't even still be here if they were on their own (camera division), they've been given a lifeline but that won't last long and this pandemic might be what kills the camera division off. If' I'm wrong about their profits I'll gladly take my blame but I've never seen it.

daveznspace

tc88 said:

WestEndFoto said:

But the trouble with market data, with the possible and at best partial exception of stock price, is that it is a lagging indicator. You can't understand where something is going by looking at a lagging indicator.

You see, you are discounting the data when it doesn't suit you without more reasonable data to present yourself. As I said, only your hand waving arguments.

Market data certainly can be used to validate your theory or your capability to project. Just look at what you predicted a year or two ago and see if they have panned out. Or make prediction now and see if you are right or wrong a year from now.

Look back on this site and see where I predicted Sony will start to fall off when the big two started putting things out.

This market data doesn't show us what's actually being sold as well.

Plus, Most ppl I know have a d850... canon doesn't have a d850, Sony can't even imagine being able to build a d850... As far as they're concerned they are set for years to come, why waste all this money especially in a pandemic when you have a camera that is the greatest dslr ever.

For those of use here when ppl all over the world come here and buy tons of prints they surely don't care what it was shot on or really if it's even good... the foreigners just grab what they can. My initial order for tourist season is 750 8.x11 prints for the first 2-3 months then increases and could be every week if we get a good season. IMO, there are bigger things to worry about, hell half these working pro's have no idea what mirrorless even is.. Now of course that's just this place and how it works, I realize it's different everywhere.

My point is that people are happy with what they have so why make a big change? They'd rather get a new iphone than worry about converting to mirrorless. In Nikon's case, their DSLR's have been so good that there really isn't a reason yet. It's like electric cars, not everyone wants one.

Not to mention the big money is in the bottom of the line models but you don't hear these stats tell that story. It's just all common sense.

daveznspace

MrFotoFool said:

When I was in Yellowstone about three years ago there was a mother and kid mountain goat on the hill above Golden Gate. A few people were there the two mornings we checked it out. The guy with the biggest lens had I think a Canon 600 f4 (pretty sure, though it may have been 500 f4 - it was covered in camo tape). However he had it attached to a Canon Rebel! I guess he spent so much on the lens he had no money left over for a pro camera.

lmfao! Especially if he "splurged" on a rebel ti not realizing it was basically the same camera going back to the t2i. But with that glass... who knows and it might have been a rental lens, I dunno. Even better they have them mounted on a $50 tripod and a small ball head.

You can tell when ppl are lost and don't know how to set their cameras especially in prime time (low light). Once I figured out that your grey card was for exposure and not white balance.. dohhhhh!! and how easy it is in a pinch, I just walk over and show them and since they don't have a grey card I go to walmart and go to the paint section and find which one is closest to middle grey and heist them all and keep them to give to these ppl. Of course I just lost mine in the tetons when a bear suddenly popped up with her cub a few feet away but I just got some new ones that are funky.

daveznspace

tc88 said:

mhedges said:

I can't speak for wildlife specific usage but from what I have seen with more general use ILC's it's almost all Nikon and Canon. I recall seeing one Sony, one Fuji, and (believe it or not) one Pentax.

I suppose that makes sense though seeing as there are so many more Canon and Nikon SLR's out there.

I guess people who don't buy Nikon/Canon put their cameras as show pieces at home then.

Why don't people go to a site like 500px and check out the camera usage of the pictures, or some real market data instead of this type of hear what you want to hear message?

Funny you say that.... Better yet go to the major photo contests and see what they were shot on... Most of the winners cameras (I'm talking in todays world) are older ones like 5dm2's, d700's, 7dm1's. You'd be amazed at these fantastic pix are shot with.

Personally, I'd put a D700 up against anything, those file are glorious and it's almost 15 yrs old.

And dude, there IS NO REAL MARKET DATA that we get to see just overviews or an entire segment. Now, if they were to show which models and how many and what the profit was on each one then that would be "real data"

Get a job coding and working with data like that and you'll understand.

A few years ago on pixoto god forbid I was ranked in the top 10 usa photographers in every catagory I posted in using a beat up d7000 and an old D700. Honestly, something was wrong with their system lol... but still.. I wasn't using the newest or best. It's all about profits, profits, profits..

"I guess people who don't buy Nikon/Canon put their cameras as show pieces at home then. "
Well, chances are very good this could be true. You don't get how Sony operates, ask the walkman how that works out. Only way they will survive is if they release a "jesus" camera and jack up all their prices so they can make a profit and somehow gain an unbelievable amout of market share FAST, SOny doesn't care, they'll shut it down. Their sensor dept is their baby in this fight.

Maybe I'm right or maybe i'm wrong but if i'm right what are these Sony ppl going to do with their now worthless gear? and who will they go to? I'd even assume that since they are so proud of their sensors that nikon could benift greatly, as in really make up market share on canon or more... ok well not since their isn't enough Sony users to close that gap to far.

tc88

daveznspace said:

Market share means squat when there are little or no profits and Sony wouldn't even still be here if they were on their own (camera division), they've been given a lifeline but that won't last long and this pandemic might be what kills the camera division off. If' I'm wrong about their profits I'll gladly take my blame but I've never seen it.

Has Nikon made money the last 5 years cumulatively? See, to substantiate your statements, you need to bring the numbers. Otherwise it's just your biased perceptions.

daveznspace said:

This market data doesn't show us what's actually being sold as well.

Actually they do, and they carry more meaningful message than someone's random thoughts. The data showed DSLR is dropping faster than mirrorless in volume. It showed DSLR is dropping faster than mirrorless in revenue. It showed mirrorless is more than half of the market. It showed per unit price of mirrorless has actually gone up. It showed Nikon was #5 in mirrorless. I think the data said plenty of things.

PB_PM

daveznspace said:

I fully agree on the D700! I hated it at first until I learned to use it and most of my fave pix (especially in Florida) are on that. It's too bad it mostly got damaged when I made the ultra terrible mistake of buying the 3lt tripod (aka junk) and it slid right off onto the concrete, occasionally it will work though.. F**kin 3lt! I've been fixing it, now does anyone here do repairs? I need to put a new top controller on it (you know the round one with ISO Qual and whatever..

I'm even going to extend the d3/d300/d700 and add an unlikely hero... the D90. I sold my d200 and a guy at BH talked me out of the d300 in favor of the D90 and there was something special about that camera.

For the consumers the D700 was epic, for Nikon it had to be a very hard lesson to learn, D3 sales must have fallen off a cliff.

I moved from the D300 (had a D90 as backup) to the D700, so it was really just a sensor size change, the controls and everything else was the same, no learning curve at all in my case. Made the change just in time to shoot my sister's wedding, such a great move, the D300 would not have done as good a job in the extremely low light setting. The D700 was a beast, took a beating and kept on going. Thankfully I only ever dropped it once on soft ground, with no ill effect. The rubber thumb grip fell off and was replaced when it was 6 years old, and at the end it started getting infrequent, but random, power issues (batteries would go from 90% -> 18% in seconds) in cold weather. Nikon said it was fine, but then they were not working outdoors, and it happened with all my batteries. Sold it to a fellow in Banff Alberta, who hopefully got some amazing shots with it.

snakebunk

My first camera was the D300s and it really had a great build quality and feel to it, and it was very easy to use, especially I liked the switch between one or many focus points. I think Nikon was at its best when it comes to DSLR body quality and feel during this period.

I met a very adventurous nature guide in Svalbard who still used a beaten up D200 because he said new cameras fail on him.

PB_PM

The D200 was also a really nice camera for it's time, another really tough camera. Build quality wise it was just as good as the D300/D700/D3, but those were the days before Nikon started implementing cost cutting measures across the board. I think the D200 had one of the best grips Nikon ever designed (keep in mind I've never shot with a D3/D4/D5 etc), but the D850 sure is close.

I really like the physical switch for AF modes and things like that on the older cameras, it made switching so much faster, less time messing around in the menus or messing with dials. I know they couldn't do it now, there are way more modes and sub-options.

daveznspace

tc88 said:

daveznspace said:

Market share means squat when there are little or no profits and Sony wouldn't even still be here if they were on their own (camera division), they've been given a lifeline but that won't last long and this pandemic might be what kills the camera division off. If' I'm wrong about their profits I'll gladly take my blame but I've never seen it.

Has Nikon made money the last 5 years cumulatively? See, to substantiate your statements, you need to bring the numbers. Otherwise it's just your biased perceptions.

daveznspace said:

This market data doesn't show us what's actually being sold as well.

Actually they do, and they carry more meaningful message than someone's random thoughts. The data showed DSLR is dropping faster than mirrorless in volume. It showed DSLR is dropping faster than mirrorless in revenue. It showed mirrorless is more than half of the market. It showed per unit price of mirrorless has actually gone up. It showed Nikon was #5 in mirrorless. I think the data said plenty of things.

"Has Nikon made money the last 5 years cumulatively?"
They've made a lot more money than Sony imaging division and that's with the earthquake damage destroying one of their factories too. If anyone here needs to bring numbers it's you, basic common sense is just as good as what we get to stumble over.

"Actually they do, and they carry more meaningful message than someone's random thoughts."
Actually, no they don't, they show an overall "blanket" but not a "this many of this model sold at a net profit of $...". You just don't understand how it works. Like the apple example, I used previously. If you'd read and pay attention you'd see that Sony's strategy was/is to sell their cameras cheap to get market share even though they were losing money on them, whereas Nikon was making a profit off theirs... come on dude, it's not rocket science.

Yes, Dslr's are dropping fast but do you realize that includes everyone not just Nikon? And again that's not the point which you don't get. For example: if a working photographer has say a D850 and glass realize that they are set for many, many years to come and don't need to worry about all this crap. Hell, the casual photographers are even more inclined to stand pat because why spend the money on something that doesn't get you better results? You're also leaving out that (especially in ff) both Nikon and Canon really haven't released but a couple dslr's in the last couple of years. SO back to common sense 101 class again, when the products aren't coming out like they were a few years ago and with especially Nikon having the d850 what's there to sell? There's the d780 but that can't make up a whole market and it's not like d850 owners have anything to upgrade to yet.

"It showed per unit price of mirrorless has actually gone up."
I'm sure it has, especially after Nikon and Canon jumped in and most of theirs have been fairly cheap so that shows you how little sony was making.

"It showed DSLR is dropping faster than mirrorless in revenue"
God lord dude lol. So if you have 4 products on one side and 30 on the other wouldn't it make sense that the 30 are making more than the 4??

"it's just your biased perceptions."
No, it's simple business logic.

"I think the data said plenty of things."
That's the problem... you think but don't know, or don't get the whole picture. SO maybe try not to think, it'll do you good lol

snakebunk

tc88 said:

Other people can make their own judgements on the merits of our postings.

I don't judge, but can you please phrase the question that you want to discuss?

dpidude

I come to NR to read about the latest but all I see anymore is a bunch rude snipping at each other. I’m tired of having to wade through all of it to get to something actually interesting. How about you create a group called bitch session so you can have at with each other and anyone who cares can go there to read it. Until then please stop!

tc88

@dpidude, dude, I didn't create this thread. I was only responding to others' posts. OP created this thread. The title of it, or at least the first post should have clearly indicated to you this thread IS your "bitch session". Now you knowingly get into it and are bitching yourself. Obviously there is no way you are above anyone else. I suppose at least you are bitching in the right thread by your definition.