Unfortunate truth - Nikon will always be inferior to Sony and Canon

[RichF]

Please not flame wars - please read the entire message.

Nikon will always be inferior to Sony and Canon in some regret. Like Sony will be always be inferior to Nikon and Canon and Canon will ...

If you pick a certain set of features, each camera brand can win or lose. If you want to grab attention (which I did with this title, sorry for the hype) make an absolute (and ridiculous statement). The leadership will change as each brand adds new features and emphasizes different market segments. We can have a lot of fun discussing the difference, learning which about different features and approaches to solving photographic challenges, ... but IMO (or should I be so bold as to say IMHO) the difference, which are often transitory, are not a good reason to switch camera brands.

 

[VinnyH]

Matthew Brady took some nice pics during the Civil War. It’s not always the gear. Sometimes it’s the photographer.
PS: I grew up a Nikon guy and it feels good still to use their gear.

 

[RichF]

Matthew Brady took some nice pics during the Civil War. It’s not always the gear. Sometimes it’s the photographer.

Yup - 6 inches behind the camera (I think that is one of Steve's favorite expressions)

 

[FB101]

but IMO (or should I be so bold as to say IMHO) the difference, which are often transitory, are not a good reason to switch camera brands.

Well then what is a good reason to change if not set of features offered at one point in time? I guess one never changes unless the brand dies, is that the idea?

If that's the case then I'll beg to differ. I changed twice, in 36 years of photography (maybe that puts me in the rushed and irrational category, I don't know ). My first time was about 1992 I think (could be +/- a year or so) when I left Minolta's MF system to switch to Canon's just introduced EOS 5 (the original) with it's incredible (to me) AF system. I am glad I did, Minolta didn't catch up to anybody until a few years ago when Sony released the A9... Minolta had AF bodies in 1992 - they just were headed in a weird direction that I just didn't want to get into.

That switch gave me 20+ years of awesome photography with Canon - Eos 5, Eos 50e, 1N, Eos 3, 1V, 20D, 1DS, 1D mk4 - that system gave me an absolute blast but in 2015 it was time to switch to Nikon and best decision ever (and costly too) but at the time, image quality from the Canon bodies was just average at best. I went from a 5D mk3 and 1Dmk4 to a D750 and I still thought I was in heaven. Even the AF acquisition was better, and image quality was in a different league altogether. In my view, Canon did not release anything competitive until the R5. That would have been 7 years of less enjoyable photography if I hadn't switched (and yes the 5Dmk4 is an absolutely useable camera that I could have used to get great pictures but it still doesn't hold a candle to a D850).

So now is the same decision point again - can Nikon close the gap back to make an equally performing wildlife action system (the only gap they have - if I didn't do wildlife I'd be happy with a z7ii and would not look back) within 12 months? Within 24 months? Within 7 years (like Canon)? Within 20 years (like Minolta) and am i happy enough shooting Nikon while they close that gap. Can they get there with something more affordable than the Z9? How soon?

I see this idea that camera makers leap-frog each other all the time and I actually think it's not the case when you look at the full system. Yes the 1Dx and D4s/5/6 played leapfrogging for the past 7+ years and the Z9 when it is released will very likely leapfrog the R3 (not so sure about the A1)... but not the core camera line. Canon hasn't put out any body that competed with the heart of Nikon's line in a decade. They finally did with the R5, and what a competitor it is.
In the meantime, while the other 2 were navel gazing Sony built the most complete mirrorless system and their feature set at various price points is well thought-out - nobody comes close except Nikon with their dSLR line and Z6/7ii lines but it takes both to match it, with all associated challenges of having to shoot dual systems and the fact that dSLRs come short on some key features.

Long answer to say, there are times when systems just have inherent advantages. Those last longer than the few months leapfrogging because they are a reflection of long term R&D investment decisions (Minolta's "strategy"; Canon's in house sensors vs Nikon going all in with Sony etc...). I agree that "who has the best bird eye AF today" is a very fleeting, short-lived lead. Who has the best platform (including glass, flash, image quality, AI capabilities etc...) to lead the long term transition to mirrorless is neither short-term nor fleeting; who that company will be though is not as clear-cut as the current situation might lead to believe.

 

[Deleted member 115]

AF is ok just not better AF?

 

[aolander]

I, for one, am tired of all the "better than" talk

 

[RichF]

Well then what is a good reason to change if not set of features offered at one point in time? I guess one never changes unless the brand dies, is that the idea?

If that's the case then I'll beg to differ. I changed twice, in 36 years of photography (maybe that puts me in the rushed and irrational category, I don't know ). My first time was about 1992 I think (could be +/- a year or so) when I left Minolta's MF system to switch to Canon's just introduced EOS 5 (the original) with it's incredible (to me) AF system. I am glad I did, Minolta didn't catch up to anybody until a few years ago when Sony released the A9... Minolta had AF bodies in 1992 - they just were headed in a weird direction that I just didn't want to get into.

That switch gave me 20+ years of awesome photography with Canon - Eos 5, Eos 50e, 1N, Eos 3, 1V, 20D, 1DS, 1D mk4 - that system gave me an absolute blast but in 2015 it was time to switch to Nikon and best decision ever (and costly too) but at the time, image quality from the Canon bodies was just average at best. I went from a 5D mk3 and 1Dmk4 to a D750 and I still thought I was in heaven. Even the AF acquisition was better, and image quality was in a different league altogether. In my view, Canon did not release anything competitive until the R5. That would have been 7 years of less enjoyable photography if I hadn't switched (and yes the 5Dmk4 is an absolutely useable camera that I could have used to get great pictures but it still doesn't hold a candle to a D850).

So now is the same decision point again - can Nikon close the gap back to make an equally performing wildlife action system (the only gap they have - if I didn't do wildlife I'd be happy with a z7ii and would not look back) within 12 months? Within 24 months? Within 7 years (like Canon)? Within 20 years (like Minolta) and am i happy enough shooting Nikon while they close that gap. Can they get there with something more affordable than the Z9? How soon?

I see this idea that camera makers leap-frog each other all the time and I actually think it's not the case when you look at the full system. Yes the 1Dx and D4s/5/6 played leapfrogging for the past 7+ years and the Z9 when it is released will very likely leapfrog the R3 (not so sure about the A1)... but not the core camera line. Canon hasn't put out any body that competed with the heart of Nikon's line in a decade. They finally did with the R5, and what a competitor it is.
In the meantime, while the other 2 were navel gazing Sony built the most complete mirrorless system and their feature set at various price points is well thought-out - nobody comes close except Nikon with their dSLR line and Z6/7ii lines but it takes both to match it, with all associated challenges of having to shoot dual systems and the fact that dSLRs come short on some key features.

Long answer to say, there are times when systems just have inherent advantages. Those last longer than the few months leapfrogging because they are a reflection of long term R&D investment decisions (Minolta's "strategy"; Canon's in house sensors vs Nikon going all in with Sony etc...). I agree that "who has the best bird eye AF today" is a very fleeting, short-lived lead. Who has the best platform (including glass, flash, image quality, AI capabilities etc...) to lead the long term transition to mirrorless is neither short-term nor fleeting; who that company will be though is not as clear-cut as the current situation might lead to believe.

I have changed twice since 1978. Around 2000 from Nikon to Canon when canon introduce IS on the super teles. The EOS3 and eventually EOS 1V (?) where not as good as the F5 but the IS glass was enough to compensate for it. Then like you I change as I saw Nikon offer a real advanatage with the D850 and some better glass than Canon.

Reason was systematic improvements, not single feature (you call then inherent advantages). ML is very young for Canon and Nikon, less so for Sony. It will take several years for the systems to mature. Until then the winds will shift ever few months or years. and it will be easy to justify switching depending upon how you rate different features.

 

[RichF]

I, for one, am tired of all the "better than" talk

but it is so much fun ...

 

[VinnyH]

There are objective features used in a vast amount of subjective ways. I admire the people who have the brainpower to analyze down to small details but often I like the less detailed results.
Ferraris are really cool, I drive a 2006 Sonata. They'd both get me across town. Sometimes it's the budget.
Rambling,
VinnyH

 

[Deleted member 115]

I, for one, am tired of all the "better than" talk

In regards to AF?

 

[Whiskeyman]

Well then what is a good reason to change if not set of features offered at one point in time?

There is no reason needed. If you want to change, change. Even if you change gear and get no real advantage, if you think you're getting an advantage, you'll likely do better. Even if not, maybe you'll enjoy the new equipment more.

 

[RichF]

Ferraris are really cool, I drive a 2006 Sonata. They'd both get me across town. Sometimes it's the budget.

Sometimes it is simply fun

 

[Charlie Lasswell]

I think that one reason there is so much interest in which brand is "better" is that, for a Nikon f-mount user, the writing on the wall says the f-mount is on its last legs. There probably won't be any more development. The future is another mount and as long as we're changing mounts, should we change brands. Myself, I have never before considered changing, but now, before I jump on the Z bandwagon, I want to understand the other options. While some seem to be offended by what's being said about other brands, I'm very interested in hearing what they have to say. While it's "possible" to get great shots with most any brand, I'm looking for more enjoyment. Once the R3 and Z9 come out, we can make direct comparisons. Until then, it's all speculation and conjecture (which can be fun too).

 

[fcotterill]

Leapfrogging AF features / Overlapping Features / Missing Features have become standard for the camera industry. Gaps in Lens systems and at their high costs are probably not going to change much, in fact lens prices will probably keep going up... these aspects of cameras and lenses are inevitable and the situation is not going to change any time soon. The longwinded factors are interesting, and I consider it remarkable to be living in the midst of this imaging resolution..... It is possibly a bigger leap than from film to digital.

The ILC industry is in the middle of a major switch from optical-imaging systems built around the mechanical SLR to the "Mirrorless" format based on a multi-tasking imaging/parallel-computing sensor. Parallel computing might be distorting the term but essentially multiple actions are performed in parallel at high speeds. Their common currency are digital signals representing imaged photons.

The sensor in several more recent generations of DSLRs have been the launching pad for integrating on-sensor functions (albeit used via liveview). Witness the incremental advances from D500, D850 to D780: released in parallel with the earlier Mirrorless cameras. And many of the primary mirrorless features appeared in the late 1990s/early 2000s in the capable point&shoots.

Besides Leica, the principal photographic companies are all Japanese. They cross-licence a plethora of patented innovations for optics, sensor production, batteries, CPUs etc. For example Sony licences certain Nikon patents for key aspects of sensor fab etc. Many of the features being refined in cameras demand more and more innovations in the software. This is obvious in Autofocus algorithms integrated into custom ICUs, which one reads now hinge on stacked imaging sensors. Autofocus is obviously one of the bleeding edge arenas of innovation, although existing AF systems are extremely reliable for most applications. The demands for better AF requiring high speed AI tracking systems are for the most challenging aspects of sports and wildlife mainly.

In this context, Nikon relies on its custom EXPEED processors using Milbeaut SoC made by Socionext who have just adopted TSMC’s 5-nanometer Technology (N5P) to make Custom SoCs [links here]. This means the new EXPEED in Nikon's Z9 could be based in N5P, which will ramp up performance at much lower overheads, including less heat. Such cameras will perform more efficiently at focusing with high speed imaging as well as networking.

And we also see this in how much Firmware upgrades can improve features of an existing hardware device, including killing off its older performance bugs. In an interview published yesterday in the Sunday Times, the infamous English engineer James Dyson notes "Technology is much harder to develop now, much more complex. When I started we were a group of mechanical engineers, but now more than 50 per cent of our engineers are software or electronics specialists, plus fluid dynamics and battery experts and other scientists."

 

[fcotterill]

Perhaps one or two major "designs" of camera-and-mount will win out in this consumer sphere of products - as in Apple-Microsoft, but the optics arena of photographic technology challenges this simplistic idea. High quality lenses take far longer to perfect and the best are always expensive, partly because of lower volume but fundamentally high costs of R&D. What else explains the continuous flow of patent applications? In this context, the primary established companies - Canon and Nikon, also Olympus and Sigma are leaning on years of innovation. For example, we see in the 50 f1.8S, 85 f1.8S and 50 f1.2S refinements of the bokeh "3D rendering" features, which Nikon's Haruo Sato and his teams refined through the 35 f1.4G, 58 f1.4G and 105 f1.4E for F-mount primes. Another example is what we appreciate today in Nikon's 70-200 f2.8E and f2.8S represents the maturation of 4+ decades of R&D in design as well improved materials and production.

The delays of all companies in completing their respective optical systems underscores these challenges of a key difference in why the production of cameras and lenses operates at their distinct tempos. These rates of product turnovers are controlled by factors that are unlikely to change, even with robotic manufacturing. High quality optics demand long periods of investment to refine a high quality lens into the finished product, and it appears to be too costly to modify such a lens into a "new" model using parts-bin strategies. This differs from models of cameras sharing common sensors and cpus etc. But MILCs may change this cloning ability, if we consider the interesting implications of higher costs of stacked-sensors, which have changed a primary aspect of marketing strategies for DSLR vs MILC (see below).

There are interesting strategic implications that are still to play out across camera mounts. It is hard to predict how these respective systems will evolve over the next decade. Consider the subtle differences for optics R&D across E, R and Z, and it is also important not to underestimate the L-Mount. Currently the barriers to market share seem to be high price and/or the relative mediocrity of the AF of L-alliance cameras....

 

[fcotterill]

As any committed photographer knows, our personal gear systems cannot avoid including both the latest and the older lenses - depending on their launch dates. We will hang on to some favourite optics for wise reasons or pure nostalgia.

A fundamental corollary is the pragmatic Nikon shooter - especially those operating within fiscal realities - will continue to rely on a mixed bag of Gold-ring and Silver-ring lenses on F-mount and Z-mount, respectively. Obviously, this is assuming they are not staying with DSLRs only. And same holds for many invested into a decent Canon system - thus a mixed bag of EF and R lenses. Cross-mount adapters will remain a critical "accessory". We can expect economic realities to govern a relatively slower tempo and mode of evolution from SLR and DSLR era lenses to a "pure" MILC system; thus, it will a mixed gearbag for many a CaNIkon photographer Perhaps, some will continue shooting with a cross-mount system(s) for decades.

It is also interesting to consider how some professionals - notably in media and particularly Pro sports - will probably rely increasingly on robotic and networked cameras, and they may also use overlapping sets of cross-mount lenses - for the primary reason that these work rather well at the price of deploying a network of many brand new cameras.

Cameras will probably iterate at faster rates, especially as they ditch almost all mechanical parts. Nevertheless, it appears that unless/until the high costs drop of R&D [with lag times] and fab challenges are overcome, then higher costs of stacked sensors is the primary core component of the bleeding-edge MILC, and this key factor will set high costs and slow the turnovers of these top tier cameras....

This means the industry is shifting across to a distinctly different marketing model - from the era of extending the options of a "DSLR-family" by designing variant models on stock-sensors (eg Z6) with a shared AF engine (eg D5-D3) - as we see in the Nikon D780. It will also be costly for the photographer to chase/ride this faster wave for "the latest Mirrorless camera", but OTTH some of us might benefit from these consumer dynamics IF they send more affordable almost-new cameras recycling into the Used Market

Personally, at the parochial level, when it comes down to selecting my cameras for wildlife photography, I have gravitated to rate Custom features and the Haptics of the camera to be far far more important than the latest AF features available in this year's "best" models.

 

[Paul T]

Can’t wait for the day when the camera does everything. AI will do the lot, technical and artistic photography. No need for human intervention at all. Human race R.I.P.

 

[Steve W]

I want a camera mounted to a drone. I can sit in my lounge room, program the drone to fly where I’d like to be, use the live view to find the subject, use animal eye focus and shoot away at 10’s of frames per second, press the return to home and it flies back here and lands on my desk. The Images are transferred wirelessly to the computer. Now the tedious bit, I probably have to get out of my comfy chair to plug things in to recharge.
I return and set the computer to work, the AI can do the sorting and processing while I have a nap. Geez photography is tiring.....

 

[FB101]

I want a camera mounted to a drone. I can sit in my lounge room, program the drone to fly where I’d like to be, use the live view to find the subject, use animal eye focus and shoot away at 10’s of frames per second, press the return to home and it flies back here and lands on my desk. The Images are transferred wirelessly to the computer. Now the tedious bit, I probably have to get out of my comfy chair to plug things in to recharge.
I return and set the computer to work, the AI can do the sorting and processing while I have a nap. Geez photography is tiring.....

The next generation of drones will self-land on an induction charging-pad. No plug-in required. You'll be ok This will trigger wireless upload of the footage and pictures to the cloud too.

 

[DavidT]

Please not flame wars - please read the entire message.

Nikon will always be inferior to Sony and Canon in some regret. Like Sony will be always be inferior to Nikon and Canon and Canon will ...

If you pick a certain set of features, each camera brand can win or lose. If you want to grab attention (which I did with this title, sorry for the hype) make an absolute (and ridiculous statement). The leadership will change as each brand adds new features and emphasizes different market segments. We can have a lot of fun discussing the difference, learning which about different features and approaches to solving photographic challenges, ... but IMO (or should I be so bold as to say IMHO) the difference, which are often transitory, are not a good reason to switch camera brands.

Each brand has their own path. Each brand will offer an equal to or better solution for different types of photography. Some forms of photography a specific brand will be behind another. This is no different then any other tech. Some will put more value into one set of features over another which will draw them towards the brand that delivers the best results for them.

I am one of the rare ones on this board as I don't care about brand but I do care about results. I have a skill set high enough that gear that lags behind my ability to consistently deliver results will likely be replaced when a better solution is available. I have shot a few brands over the year and have spent the most time with Nikon.

It used to be the majority of people chose either Canon or Nikon. Kind of a Ford vs Chevy in the camera world. In todays world we have more choices from companies such as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus which all have a different path on how they deliver results to their customers via their design. They each have their strengths and all can deliver results for any skill level.

Anytime you bring a new technology such as MSLR cameras each company chooses a path. Some will be a path that delivers what their legacy owners want and some won't. Some brands will deliver cameras/lenses that attract new customers and others won't.

For many the brand is more important than results. For many they default to the "its the 6 inches, or I am not spending that much to change, or that xyz new camera doesn't do anything I can't do". They aren't completely wrong but for one reason or another the new gear by any brand doesn't attract them and that is ok for them, but not necessarily for others.

It seems to me that with the recent Sony cameras of just a couple of years they have delivered new tech that does leap frog the others in some regards. Are Sony cameras perfect? Nope nor has any camera built by any other camera company. Cameras always have had and will have strengths and weaknesses no matter the brand.

I find it interesting how many discuss this feature or that feature of any brand yet won't spend the money for a camera that has that feature when it is $6-7K. Personally I believe we will see flagship cameras hit $8K soon. Some will pay for the newest tech and others will wait 5 years for lower models or used gear that hits a price point they are willing to spend, others will never spend the money and be happy with 10 year plus gear. No one is right or wrong. What gets old is those who are brand loyal no matter what or won't spend the money constantly argue with those who are willing to spend the money.

The brand and tech wars won't end anytime soon. Frankly that is a good thing! It keeps the brands pushing to deliver equipment that allows us the opportunity to capture images someone in the civil war would have only dreamed of having.

Technology will always move forward, will you?

 

[DavidT]

Can’t wait for the day when the camera does everything. AI will do the lot, technical and artistic photography. No need for human intervention at all. Human race R.I.P.

Will be a sad day when the artist is removed from the equation but I am guessing when an SLR came out the guy shooting the pin hole camera said the same thing. It is a reason there is a resurgence of film photography. Funny thing is it is mostly being driven by a generation that never had film cameras to begin with. I personally don't miss film.

 

[VinnyH]

Will be a sad day when the artist is removed from the equation but I am guessing when an SLR came out the guy shooting the pin hole camera said the same thing. It is a reason there is a resurgence of film photography. Funny thing is it is mostly being driven by a generation that never had film cameras to begin with. I personally don't miss film.

I'll never miss film. I would shoot 10 rolls of Ektachrome during a baseball game and be lucky to get 10 nice shots. I don't have that access anymore but now digital let's you shoot thousands at almost no cost other than an extra battery to have handy.
My daughter goes to the zoo with me and I try to explain (the old days) having to be judicious with only 36 shots on a roll of film.

 

[DavidT]

I'll never miss film. I would shoot 10 rolls of Ektachrome during a baseball game and be lucky to get 10 nice shots. I don't have that access anymore but now digital let's you shoot thousands at almost no cost other than an extra battery to have handy.
My daughter goes to the zoo with me and I try to explain (the old days) having to be judicious with only 36 shots on a roll of film.

I agree with you!

 

[Woodyg3]

Please not flame wars - please read the entire message.

Nikon will always be inferior to Sony and Canon in some regret. Like Sony will be always be inferior to Nikon and Canon and Canon will ...

If you pick a certain set of features, each camera brand can win or lose. If you want to grab attention (which I did with this title, sorry for the hype) make an absolute (and ridiculous statement). The leadership will change as each brand adds new features and emphasizes different market segments. We can have a lot of fun discussing the difference, learning which about different features and approaches to solving photographic challenges, ... but IMO (or should I be so bold as to say IMHO) the difference, which are often transitory, are not a good reason to switch camera brands.

Oh, Boy, Rich. Look what you started.

The brand and model comparisons are especially big topics now that mirrorless has taken some very big steps forward. Changing brands will make sense for some people, and not for others. I am not going to judge. One thing I know for sure is that I certainly don't have the money to even think about it.

 

[Rassie]

I, for one, am tired of all the "better than" talk

Here's something else to think of: It's nice to have the most capable, versatile, technically advanced (better than) camera system on the market. Right now that's probably the Sony A9. For a hobbyist like me that camera, or any other that costs that much, cannot be justified so I'll most likely never own one. Nearing retirement I'm going to have to count my pennies in the future. Do I still manage to make good images with my less capable, cheaper Z6II? Absolutely, yes. I certainly don't get the number of keepers of fast-moving wildlife that I would get with the best, most capable camera, but I still manage to get good images. I shoot different types of images such as wildlife, landscape, architecture, macro, etc. Wildlife is only a portion of what I do, and birds in flight even less. I don't believe the top gun cameras are much better at most things not related to fast-moving wildlife.

I would challenge the Sony A9, Canon R5, future Nikon Z9 shooters to post more of those absolutely stunning images that could not have been made with a lesser body. Show me enough of those and I might be persuaded to spring for the top gun. We should be talking more about results (with posted images to illustrate) and less about features.