I’d say that’s what the D6 and 1DX-MKIII are for both these brands. Let’s face it they both want new lens sales. Stopping DSLR does exactly that.
Unfortunate truth - Nikon will always be inferior to Sony and Canon
- Thread starter RichF
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
FB101
Well-known member
I think part of Nikon’s challenges (or maybe all of them) is that they didn’t start with that plan in mind. I think they intended to manage both, release a D880 and maybe a D580 and gradually transition... and then the mirrorless breakthroughs of Sony and canon happened and supply got disrupted... and they had to make a pivot to all mirrorless much faster than planned.
Larry Shuman
Well-known member
Thank you guys for changing systems because I have picked up great deal on used Nikon gear. The latest acquisition is a like new D3s with only 19,400 clicks for only $800.00. I replaced my busted D810 with another D810 with 11,200 clicks. Early summer I found a F5 for only $326.00 and last year I found a Nikon 1000mm F:11 for only $304.00. I use the 1000mm on the F5. So please keep trading in your Nikon gear maybe I'll see something I want.
You’re welcome! No regrets dumping the F Mount.
If you stop selling dSLRs, you better have a great alternative. Otherwise consumers will go elsewhere. Without a great solution, as is Nikon's current situation, have a bridge really helps. The FTZ is okay but not nearly enough (of course, IMO). As Thom Hogan suggests it would be helpful if Nikon would offer a conversion service for their recent large lens. Faster AF than lens + FTZ, and it might be possible for Nikon to add a dropin 1.4 TC inside the FTZ area.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Nearly half of the 1 million DSLRs shipped in first 5 months of 2021 went to Europe ( 426k DSLR vs 324k mirrorless). It will be interesting to see if this trend persists or is the slower end of wave..... trending to Mirrorless.
Thom H keeps buzzing on about Nikon converting F-Nikkors to Z-mount. It may be feasible to upgrade a G lens to E aperture but how many G models have not been already phased out, or on the way out in the exotic lineup for F-mount (eg 300 f2.8G, 200 f2G)? It is about a decade back, ( < 2013) that Japanese engineers likely identified the benefits of electronic apertures for high spec DSLRs (ie 800 f5.6E for the D4), for higher fps photography.
As for the new Z Autofocus system, Nikon has emphasized the differences repeatedly: including paired stepper motors; and how the Z protocol is better 'wired' etc....let alone other fundamental differences. The attributes of the focusing elements in the F-mount exotic telephotos were optimized for speed and precision of USM mechanisms (usually ring type USM - Nikon calls S type). Besides different protocols, the torque etc differs from stepper motors and probably the mechanics of the focusing trains between F vs Z telephotos. AF-P Nikkors use stepper technology, so are most suited to the Z AF system, apparently (besides quieter for video and smoother).
[EDIT] Thus the 500 f5.6E PF has a SWM ultrasonic motor vs the AFP in the 70-300 f/4.5-6.3G AFP FX. Last but not least, the 120-300 f2.8E SR teardown by Lensrentals, confirms Nikon has kept the F and Z Nikkors firmly divided. How is going to pay for the labour costs alone for a one-way "Z conversion" of such a complex optical device? And lock out any future use witha D6 etc - let alone assuming such a notion of "conversion" has any firm relevance to the real-world (beyond an influencer's keyboard).
Thom H keeps buzzing on about Nikon converting F-Nikkors to Z-mount. It may be feasible to upgrade a G lens to E aperture but how many G models have not been already phased out, or on the way out in the exotic lineup for F-mount (eg 300 f2.8G, 200 f2G)? It is about a decade back, ( < 2013) that Japanese engineers likely identified the benefits of electronic apertures for high spec DSLRs (ie 800 f5.6E for the D4), for higher fps photography.
As for the new Z Autofocus system, Nikon has emphasized the differences repeatedly: including paired stepper motors; and how the Z protocol is better 'wired' etc....let alone other fundamental differences. The attributes of the focusing elements in the F-mount exotic telephotos were optimized for speed and precision of USM mechanisms (usually ring type USM - Nikon calls S type). Besides different protocols, the torque etc differs from stepper motors and probably the mechanics of the focusing trains between F vs Z telephotos. AF-P Nikkors use stepper technology, so are most suited to the Z AF system, apparently (besides quieter for video and smoother).
[EDIT] Thus the 500 f5.6E PF has a SWM ultrasonic motor vs the AFP in the 70-300 f/4.5-6.3G AFP FX. Last but not least, the 120-300 f2.8E SR teardown by Lensrentals, confirms Nikon has kept the F and Z Nikkors firmly divided. How is going to pay for the labour costs alone for a one-way "Z conversion" of such a complex optical device? And lock out any future use witha D6 etc - let alone assuming such a notion of "conversion" has any firm relevance to the real-world (beyond an influencer's keyboard).
Last edited:
ChrisM
Well-known member
Talking about inferior: I used the Canon 7DII, and now use the Nikon D500. The 7DII, Canon's top crop camera was solidly inferior to the Nikon D500 in every way, but especially sensor wise the 7DII was inferior. Canon kept that inferior body in production for how long, 7 years?
Nikon will catch up when they have the tech ready....
Nikon will catch up when they have the tech ready....
fcotterill
Well-known member
Technology advances in minor jumps, with the rare longer leap - D1 or D3 type. Any such jump or leap tends to punctuate much longer periods of engineering stasis. These cycles overlap as technology advances - eg sensors and autofocus - and the timing of updates and innovations hinges on in-company R&D. Thus, when compared, cameras of the current year are often out of phase with respect to the diversity and features of their respective Lens Mount systems. This simple fact is well known, but it is overlooked too often - especially in outbreaks of GAS, which can flare up into jingoistic epidemics of tyre kicking around camera specs - lauding one or another brand....
Quality in the finer details of the build of cameras and lenses tends to stay more constant; but - arguably a big BUT - compromises in design/materials of budget lenses can lower a company's standards set by more expensive products. This applies for example to how universally a company apples principles of quality weather-sealing and utilizes tougher materials for cameras and lenses. Some of Nikon's budget products tend to this region of the envelope - weather-sealing can be found wanting.
Very few reviewers actually test weather sealing of cameras under controlled conditions - Imaging Resource is a conspicuous exception
Weather-Sealing and robustness under tough outdoor conditions are critical features, and the singular factor why I will continue with Nikon. In my experience closing on 4 decades is not unique, Nikon gear has a well earned reputation for reliability, especially outdoors in the toughest conditions (including polar, alpine, outer space etc). The teardowns aka dissections by LensRentals of a Nikon Z7 and 24-70 f2.8S Nikkor underscore Nikon did not spare engineering resources in the Z department when it comes to outdoor reliability. Torture tests of the Z6 and Z7 endorse these findings by Roger Cicala and colleagues
Quality in the finer details of the build of cameras and lenses tends to stay more constant; but - arguably a big BUT - compromises in design/materials of budget lenses can lower a company's standards set by more expensive products. This applies for example to how universally a company apples principles of quality weather-sealing and utilizes tougher materials for cameras and lenses. Some of Nikon's budget products tend to this region of the envelope - weather-sealing can be found wanting.
Very few reviewers actually test weather sealing of cameras under controlled conditions - Imaging Resource is a conspicuous exception
Weather-Sealing and robustness under tough outdoor conditions are critical features, and the singular factor why I will continue with Nikon. In my experience closing on 4 decades is not unique, Nikon gear has a well earned reputation for reliability, especially outdoors in the toughest conditions (including polar, alpine, outer space etc). The teardowns aka dissections by LensRentals of a Nikon Z7 and 24-70 f2.8S Nikkor underscore Nikon did not spare engineering resources in the Z department when it comes to outdoor reliability. Torture tests of the Z6 and Z7 endorse these findings by Roger Cicala and colleagues
Last edited:
Nikon will not invest more into F mount lenses or cameras. They can't afford to do DSLR and mirrorless at the same time. They only have so much manufacturing capacity and then add in the global supply chain issues plaguing everyone and they have to narrow their focus. That focus will be on the future, not the past. With Sony and Canon dropping new glass and bodies each year Nikon can not be seen as not moving fast enough, they can't be seen as a DSLR company anymore. If you look at the complaints folks on this forum have about either the Z lenses that are available or the bodies for Z it is because Nikon got a late start, not that they aren't capable. So they need to move faster and the only way they do that and stop folks from leaving is to focus all of their energy on Z. Sorry but your F mount glass nor bodies are of any importance to them anymore.
You see these debates in just about every field - woodworkers, artists, fly fishermen, bicyclists, photographers, and on and on... Ultimately, what matters is who produces beautiful results, not what tools they use. I was fly fishing in Wyoming recently, and caught more trout with my $200 Cabela's rig than the guy downstream with his $3500 Orvis outfit. And, I think I looked better too!
It's all about what works best for the individual involved.
Don’t know about anybody else but I can take a crap picture with expensive/cheap camera/lens. I refuse to get hung up on whats best/worst /latest because I really love taking pictures and the challenge of bird photography. But hey that’s maybe just me. 
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
This would equate better if you were shooting with a D3500 instead of a D850 which is highly regarded as a world class dslr. At $3,000 it is still out of many peoples price range.You see these debates in just about every field - woodworkers, artists, fly fishermen, bicyclists, photographers, and on and on... Ultimately, what matters is who produces beautiful results, not what tools they use. I was fly fishing in Wyoming recently, and caught more trout with my $200 Cabela's rig than the guy downstream with his $3500 Orvis outfit. And, I think I looked better too!
One of the things that kept me a NIkon shooter over the decades from film to digital was the durability of the F mount. Now that's fading with MILC's Z mount.
O
Well-known member
Nikon is a company that will allow others like Sony/Canon to spear ahead with lots of investment into new technology and new production lines, once Sony and Canon developed a following/established a market Nikon simply copies makes and tweaks an equivalent Nikon model, WHY, it makes sense to invest once rather than 3 times like Sony and Canon, it easier to copy new innovation than incur the expense in creating it so to speak.
Its always going to seem like its behind but its really playing the copycat game for maximum profits.
If you look at the % market share and shifts it echos the theory.
Nikon has excellent image colours, period, even Canon and Sony say so.
If the Z9 has it all, high iso, natural colours, speed, resolution, tracking, whats left for the photographer to do.........? anyone can use this camera and no doubt be a star.
I cant help but reiterate 80-90% of the end result comes form you, the gear helps and yes the newer gear has its advantages.
The Sony AI is awesome and game changer and Canon and Nikon is catching up, what will happen is Sony will leap ahead again with its A2 release.
Oz down under.
Its always going to seem like its behind but its really playing the copycat game for maximum profits.
If you look at the % market share and shifts it echos the theory.
Nikon has excellent image colours, period, even Canon and Sony say so.
If the Z9 has it all, high iso, natural colours, speed, resolution, tracking, whats left for the photographer to do.........? anyone can use this camera and no doubt be a star.
I cant help but reiterate 80-90% of the end result comes form you, the gear helps and yes the newer gear has its advantages.
The Sony AI is awesome and game changer and Canon and Nikon is catching up, what will happen is Sony will leap ahead again with its A2 release.
Oz down under.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
JFW
Member
I like using my inferior gear, I can always blame it for the crappy photos I take. Just can't do that with a Sony or Canon.
If I could like it twice I would ….
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
But, Steve always has the latest greatest equipment in his own hands.
The best camera will not turn me into a seasoned Pro but it will help me become a better photographer and make photography more fun for me. 50MP, 20 fps, Bird eye EF, and all the advantages of EVF and Mirrorless will also help the best Pros be better. Cameras have always been advancing since the very beginning.
A few weeks ago someone asked about "favorite cameras ever" and I chose my old Pentax 35mm due to all the great places it has been with me and memories. So, I went out and bought batteries and film to use it again but lost total interest before even loading the camera. I put it back in storage. To me very boring now.
StephenP
Member
You see these debates in just about every field - woodworkers, artists, fly fishermen, bicyclists, photographers, and on and on... Ultimately, what matters is who produces beautiful results, not what tools they use. I was fly fishing in Wyoming recently, and caught more trout with my $200 Cabela's rig than the guy downstream with his $3500 Orvis outfit. And, I think I looked better too!
At one time I was a "Professional Fly Fisherman" or in other words, I scaped by from guiding, teaching, and tying/selling flies.
Due to a serious shoulder injury that required a major rebuild and 2 years of recovery, I gave it up. I can't begin to tell you how many times someone would contact me to purchase flies for their once-in-a-lifetime trip. I would ask what they are bringing for rods/reels/lines, etc. And like you just mentioned about the Orvis crowd, it was in the thousands! But the real kicker was, they came from recommendations from others, my reputation as a tier. In the end, they were looking for the cheapest flies they could buy. They would complain about paying my prices when they could get them online for 10% of my price. I would tell them to enjoy their trip and keep count of how many hooks broke, or the materials failed after a couple of casts and not from a fish. I miss the business, but not the nitwits. I know a bunch of the guy's from Wicked Tuna and I keep asking them to let me come along and fish with a 14 wt
Niels.hr.Hansen
Well-known member
If it was only about equipment specs, i believe Ansel Adams and Robert Capa should only have been capable of getting a shot of their own feet. It's not the individual pixels that makes an image superior to another, it's the thing 6 inches behind the eyepiece. That said, yes it's more satisfying to me to use my D850 than my D7200, but no one has ever told me that a picture is much better just because i used the D850. But with 45.9 Mpix instead of 24 I know that, I can crop if I don't get close enough, not pestered with heavy noise (as early) so I have a higher chance of getting some data that can provide a good picture.
D
Deleted member 115
Guest
If Ansel Adams was photographing birds in flight today he would be crazy not to have bird eye AF.
Doug Herr
Well-known member
It’s often not the case that a picture looks better with a higher-spec camera, more often it’s picture or no picture.
Since I don't have the money for an A1, I could say that I don't need one. That would be true. I could say I don't want one, and that would be untrue. I would enjoy an A1, I am quite sure. I will not claim that I don't see the advantages of the latest crop of Sony and Canon mirrorless high end cameras. I'd also like a car with a backup camera, heated seat, and collision avoidance. Can't afford it, don't need it, but I'm not gonna' say it wouldn't be nice.
A friend of mine is a professional photographer (artsy portraits and landscapes), repped by top galleries, been in major museums (has prints sell for as much as $20k each), etc. and the fact is her quick iPhone snapshots are often fantastic images.