With the proliferation of all kinds of gadgetry not only for everyday needs, but also for needs we thought we would never have, the camera market sadly seems to be moving in the same direction. Actually, it is already half way there. New cameras, lenses and accessories keep popping up every few months and come in all shapes, forms and colors. The camera market seems to be experiencing the same over-saturation that other electronics companies are seeing today. People do not want to buy new TVs anymore, so manufacturers are trying to find new ways to sell more TVs by adding more features. The approach is built on typical consumerism – make something look shiny and more interesting than it was before and it might lure people into buying it every year. Camera companies are sadly following exactly the same practice. Announcements are becoming more important than the products themselves, so manufacturers are pushing more redundant choices year after year just to make headlines.
As recently as five years ago, we did not have DSLR cameras in different colors. Silver and Black were the only colors used and they were good enough to cover the majority of the products. Not anymore. Now we have every manufacturer selling entry-level choices in different colors. Pentax is selling the K-50 in 120 different colors and you can customize it any way you want. Now that we have pretty much hit the innovation wall, camera manufacturers seem to be trying the same cheap tricks just to make their products look a little more attractive. They want you to think that once you buy a certain color, you will stand out from the crowd. What nonsense. Pink Nikon D4s anyone? And if color is not your thing, they will make a new DSLR with mostly the same specs every year! A perfectly good example of such behavior is now Nikon with its never ending line of basic DSLRs.
Since the lion share of of Nikon’s DSLR sales come from entry-level cameras and camera sales are on a steep decline globally, Nikon clearly pointed out earlier last year that it wants to concentrate on entry-level cameras. As a result, we have seen two new entry-level models announced within the last 6 months (Nikon D5300 and D3300), with probably faster refresh cycles in the future due to the new corporate strategy. If Nikon follows the point and shoot (and recently mirrorless market) past, we might see entry-level DSLRs pop out every year. If you look at Nikon’s current DSLR line, we have the following cameras listed: D3100, D3200, D3300, D90, D5100, D5200 and D5300 – a total of 7 DSLRs! And this list does not include the Nikon D3000 and the D5000, which you can still buy new today. I cannot imagine the pain a typical buyer goes through when trying to pick one camera among such a wide array of entry-level choices. It confuses the heck out of them as they try to figure out different models, prices and value. Choice is not always a good thing. We are getting spammed with DSLRs just like point and shoot cameras of yesterday. Although Canon follows a similar practice with their line of Canon Digital Rebel cameras, at least they have only four listed on their website. Why continue pushing such old cameras as D3100 and D90? The D90 is now almost 6 years old, so why is it still listed on the website? I get it, too many of those were made and there is still plenty of inventory left. But for 6 years?
Instead of pushing more crap-gadgets to the consumers that clearly do not want them, why not work on pushing existing inventory and working on releasing cameras with innovative features every 3-4 years instead? I would welcome a D3300 with a built-in GPS, WiFi, a well-balanced 16 MP sensor and a fast hybrid / electronic viewfinder. That would be innovative. But when I look at its current specs and see the same camera as the D3200, plus a couple of extra features here and there, I realize why Nikon is in trouble. So much waste to create, market and sell something that is practically the same as the predecessor.
Time for a change. Nikon needs it badly.
Nasim,
I support and understand the manufacturers operating in this manner and here is why.
I’m a first-time dslr owner of a d3300. So I had the option of getting the d3200 for a little less, but in waiting for a good sale, I was able to get the d3300 at a very close price.
I believe there is value in having these minor upgrade releases for folks like me who aren’t upgrading from the previous generation and appreciate the few added improvements they’ve made on the current model.
Are they really putting much into the development between, for example, the d3200 and d3300? I doubt it. The marketing likely isn’t a big thing. They just shift from marketing the d3200 to marketing the new product is all. Had they not released the d3300, they would continue marketing the d3200 as long as the sales continued.
And I’m guessing they have other R&D hard at work on the next major upgrade that will be announced at the 3-4 year mark that you had mentioned. I doubt they let a few years go by and then determine they need to get a much better model released in one year that is a huge upgrade from the last. They had been working on the guts of this big upgrade in parallel w/ the ‘teaser’ upgrades in between.
They should probably just add an S to the in-between models like Apple does their iPhone though to show that it’s “pretty much the same as the current one”.
I fully agree with the initial commentary by Nasim. I am researching to buy my fist digital camera. It looks like I will end without any purchase for the second time since my first time around shopping for a digital camera ended the same way…no purchase. Too many cameras, reviews appear to be simply marketing agents for the camera companies. Model names are similar, confusing. I once again will give up on the purchase for a digital camera. Too much of a draining hassle.
Then I read about recalls from Nikon and Canon. I see all the cheap plastic junk with the mushie controls, though high price tags. It is sad, in my opinion the camera, photography industry has turned into a common freak show and a dirty business.
“you have no idea what is under development, and you see the needs of photographers through a prism of your needs and experience.”
OK, then illuminate us with what you know about what’s being hatched in these “labs” you speak of. If you’re not capable of providing solid proof that X, Y & Z substantial developments are actually taking place in the photography world, then your speculations are no more accurate than mine. Emphasis on SUBSTANTIAL and not marginal improvements.
You write in fragments and incomplete sentences. What exactly do you mean by “underexpose a sunset”. If your goal is to prove me wrong, then please do so in a way that’s educational to me and everyone else on this forum.
I can only assume that you’re referring to the need for bracketing high contrast scenes. I suppose that dynamic range can be improved to render HDR images similar to what’s currently done with top end HDR software.
But, again, how is that going to improve upon what’s currently available? The final image won’t be any better; but generated by a different source. Yawn….
I’d like to keep chatting with you but not if you’re going to communicate through code and fragments. Please step it up or this conversation is closed.
Cheers!
Dear JR,
> substantial developments are actually taking place in the photography world, then your speculations are no more accurate than mine. Emphasis on SUBSTANTIAL and not marginal improvements.
What others see as substantial is marginal to you, so no point.
> What exactly do you mean by “underexpose a sunset”.
Exactly what I said. Just answer the question if you can.
> I can only assume that you’re referring to the need for bracketing high contrast scenes.
Of course not.
JR, before you continue arguing with Iliah, let me just give you a quick glimpse of his background. Please first read this article that he provided to us a couple of weeks ago, then visit RawDigger.com (he created the software). The man knows a thing or two about cameras and the technology in them.
As for substantial developments, take a look at the Sony A7 and A7R – aren’t those substantial developments when compared to full-frame DSLRs? Yes, they have their issues (and many), but the technology in those cameras is very much different. And it will continue advancing even more…
I know who he is and why I expect much better from him. He’s not provided a single example of a significant advancement in photography technology. He keeps saying that I don’t get it, or that it’s not worth his time to explain these advancements. If he’s trying to impress me, then he’s achieving the opposite.
Look, like anyone else who visits this site, I want photography tech to improve. But I’m not going to lie to myself, or anyone else, by saying that I’m impressed with the latest attempts at making existing cameras smaller.
That’s all I see from the A7/R. Not much more than making what we already have smaller. If that excites you and a number of others, great! But I don’t share your enthusiasm.
JR, when you have a chance, please rent/borrow/try one of those smaller camera bodies and explore them a little. It might change your mind. We are not just talking about making something smaller. The EVF alone is a huge difference compared to OVF. Please read this article, where I talk about the differences in much more detail.
The smaller size comes as a result of removing the mirror and pentaprism. But there are far more advantages to mirrorless than size. Just the ability to review images in the viewfinder is a huge plus when working in daylight. You would never be able to do that with a DSLR!
Nasim,
I fully understand the tech behind the A7/R, but am not impressed with it. Last week I was in Canyonlands doing some shooting and ran into a couple guys from California that had various mirrorless cameras and one Leica.
They changed batteries a number of times during an evening shoot when the sun came down and it got real cold….and did so after only taking a few shots! The batteries on my Nikons lasted me until the next day and I took many more shots.
Ultimately…..it’s the image. THE IMAGE.
Dear JR,
> I fully understand the tech behind the A7/R
In that case, please explain why the limit is set to 17220.
Dear Iliah,
I don’t know what “17220” means, nor do I care. But evidently you know and like to use that knowledge to throw your weight around this forum. You’re not impressing me, but instead coming across as an arrogant blowhard.
Do you know what 3:1 means?
That’s the ratio of battery changes that a photographer had to make to his A7R -vs- my D800 in a matter of two hours during a recent outing. Any other number is meaningless to me.
I have no idea what “labs” you’re referring to. Photography, to most folks, is a means to record the world around them and either print the results or display them digitally and not theory or calculus.
Prints from a D800 at mural size are impeccable up to very high ISOs. If you need larger prints than mural size, you would step up to medium format. Larger prints? Shoot with large format digital back. How many photographers do you actually know that print mural-sized or larger prints? I would bet that no more than .1% of photographers print at those sizes. There simply aren’t many places, other than museums and select galleries that can display such prints. Hence, photography has indeed hit limits of human eyesight.
– Larger pixel count is already there (see medium format and large format backs)
– Noise can only improve so much before images begin to look artificial, for most photographic applications. Astrophotographers would certainly benefit from better noise handling at high ISOs. But Joe Blow photographers who shoot portraits and/or landscapes and never print beyond the typical 20×30, higher noise performance beyond what’s already available is unnecessary.
When I mentioned “3D imaging” I was referring to cameras that would allow you to shoot then display a rendered 3D image, much like what we saw in the movie Ironman. Now, that would be innovative! Everything else you mentioned are marginal and boring improvements.
Dear JR,
> I have no idea what “labs” you’re referring to.
Exactly. Let me put it in other way – you have no idea what is under development, and you see the needs of photographers through a prism of your needs and experience.
> Noise can only improve so much before images begin to look artificial
That is untrue, and of course “so much” is not the same as “very little”.
> But Joe Blow photographers who shoot portraits and/or landscapes and never print beyond the typical 20×30, higher noise performance beyond what’s already available is unnecessary.
How much can you underexpose a sunset?
Pixel count is not the same as resolution. 3- and 4-colour filters are not the only possible.
This article is way over the top, Nasim.
Photography equipment is hitting physical limits and to expect Nikon to “innovate” very often is silly. Take the D800; it’s about as advanced as a camera can get in the digital 35mm sensor sector. Aside from a few more bells and whistles what else can Nikon do to improve the image quality? Answer: NOTHING. And when all is said and done, it’s about the image quality. Everything else is superfluous.
If performance is paramount, then Nikon makes the highest performing professional cameras, only rivaled by Canon’s 1 series of pro bodies.
So what’s the problem? That Nikon is making too many entry level cameras? Would you expect it to be any other way? The vast majority of photographers are entry level hobbyists that don’t need enthusiast or pro bodies. Why shouldn’t Nikon, Canon or any other manufacturer cater to the largest customer base? They’d be foolish not to.
Let’s face it, camera gear cannot improve beyond what human eyesight can discern. We’re reaching physical limits and all that camera manufacturer’s can provide are add-on gadgetry that won’t make the resulting image any better.
Until we hit some completely new photography technology, like 3D imaging, innovation in photography is pretty much DEAD!
Dear JR,
> We’re reaching physical limits and all that camera manufacturer’s can provide are add-on gadgetry that won’t make the resulting image any better.
Noise can be decreased. Pixel count can be increased. Colour accuracy can be increased. Pixel and field non-uniformities can be compensated much better. Autofocus can be improved. Autoexposure can be improved. Flash control can be improved. Ergonomics can be improved. All with very visible results.
> completely new photography technology, like 3D imaging
Hm. Is it really new? 3D viewfinders are (somewhat) new, but not 3D photography.
> innovation in photography is pretty much DEAD!
That is, you never been to labs I guess.
JR, you know, Ken Olsen once said “there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home”. And in 2014, pretty much every family in the US owns at least one smart device.
Saying that innovation in photography is dead, is very similar to the above quote. There is a lot to innovate! Just take a look at the EVF of the new generation mirrorless cameras and you will realize that we are just in the beginning phase of development of digital technology in cameras. We have just moved away from film and now we need to move away from mechanical shutters.
As for entry level cameras, I never said that Nikon should not have them. Perhaps you did not fully read or understand my article? The point is, there are too many of them and it creates lots of confusion among buyers. I am not making this stuff up, I am bringing this up from my experience – lots of people email me every day, asking which one of the Nikon D3x0 or D5x0 cameras to buy. All Nikon needs to do is push out the old inventory before releasing a new model. If they did that, there would be one current model to worry about. But no, they choose to have 7 models, some of which are 5-6 years old!
Nasim,
Please tell me if the FINAL IMAGE will be different with the mirrorless advancements vs, say, the Canon 5dmklll? Don’t bother responding, because I know what your answer will be, because there’s only one possible answer.
As for ergonomics improvements, I’m willing to bet that the there will be a full pendulum swing in a couple years toward bigger cameras. It’s happened before and it’ll happen again.
Perhaps you didn’t re-read your article, but you clearly criticize Nikon for having too many of the same cameras. That was the crux of your article. If not, then you are writing in code, like our other friend.
Having so many choices is a clear indicator that photography is hitting some very serious limits. The current improvements are being made in size(reduction, for now), connectivity and this, that or the other gizmo, but little to no improvement in image quality. Ever since the D800 and D600, the rest of the camera world has been trying to make those same cameras smaller! How’s that supposed to excite me when I have extra large hands and no desire for James Bond style spy photography?!
Show me some advancements in image quality and I’m all eyes and ears. Otherwise, the so-called “advancements” in small format digital cameras don’t impress me. On the other hand, medium format systems intrigue me, but they’re far out of reach for me financially.
JR, but is it always about the final image? Isn’t the process important anymore?
Regarding ergonomics improvements and bigger cameras, just take a look at what happened with the computer industry. When smaller tablet devices came out, a lot of people claimed they were no threat to PCs. And now the tablet sales far exceed PC sales. Just judging from this, I just do not see how cameras are going to get larger. History does not always repeat itself, especially when it comes to technology :)
And yes, I did criticize Nikon for having too many choices and I even proposed a solution. That was the point of the article – Nikon should make it easier to choose its cameras, not harder.
As for the D800 being in the top right now, will you have a different opinion when Canon or Nikon come up with a 56MP camera? There is always room for improvement. Even if image quality cannot be enhanced (which is not true, just wait and see), that same D800 can be changed to make it far better in autofocus, live view, fps, GPS, WiFi, etc. A camera does not comprise of just the sensor, so it is not JUST about the image quality my friend :) The Olympus OM-D E-M1 is an amazing camera, but it has a smaller sensor and its image quality does not beat full-frame. And yet it is the most popular camera of 2013 (according to DPReview). I have it on my table right now and I am very impressed, especially after coming back from a very cold trip where the temperatures hit -5F. My Nikon Df’s shutter froze and created exposure issues, while the E-M1 worked like a charm. And yet the Df has arguably the best ISO performance and image quality…
So it is not just about image quality!
Nasim,
Hasselblad and other medium format manufacturers have been selling 50+MP cameras for a while now, so a 50+MP Nikon would not make me get off my chair. Plus, the current Nikon glass struggles to keep up with the D800. How good do you think it will do when you throw a 56MP sensor behind it?
If image “improvement” for Canon and Nikon means larger sensors, then they would have to change their businesses model to compete with medium format companies and I highly doubt that they will go that route.
If you’re the kind of person that enjoys rapid and drastic advancements, then photo tech is the wrong business for you. You’ll be bored to tears and writing article after article like the one you just wrote. Human eyesight is the limiting factor and no matter how much the tech improves, the eye cannot.
The D800 would not “improve” its autofocus via new tech. All it would need to do is recycle the tech that’s employed in the D4. Hardly an innovation. Albeit, a KICKASS camera that would be!
Dear JR,
D4 autofocus is old news.
JR, kudos for challenging Iliah a bit. Not quite sure why his perspective is so conventional & linear here, we should all be working together to push/pull Nikon forward. As you can see even on this blog, there’s never a shortage of Nikon apologists. What a lucky company they are to have a cadre of users ready to make excuses for their misses and failures whenever they happen. ;-)
I would challenge your own viewpoint, however, that nothing substantial can be improved on the D800. Users have reported substantial deficiencies in the body & controls since its launch. Take autofocus to start… the D800 has be cited for poor PDAF with ultra-fast primes, poor PDAF in incandescent/CFL lighting, poor AF calibration consistency between left/center/right AF points, and back focus with Nikon Speedlights when using AF Assist.
I would argue image quality is only a consideration after the photographer successfully manages to take an in-focus shot in the first place. I’m not saying you can’t coax that out of the D800… it just takes jumping through too many hoops to do it. Photographers shouldn’t be limited to consistent focus with f/2.8 or slower lenses only. Photographers shouldn’t have to focus their professional DSLR with central AF point focus & recompose like a compact camera from 2003. Photographers shouldn’t be forced to shoot at double the speed of the old focal length rule or with tripod and mirror up to avoid blur from instability & mirror slap. Photographers shouldn’t have to manually enter different AF micro-adjustments into the D800 for each lens just to shoot in different ambient lighting. Photographers shouldn’t have to disable their AF Assist lamp on their flash to get accurate focus. Yet if you read the DPReview FX forum you’ll see D800 users doing one or all of these things to compensate for design deficiencies and Nikon technology that fails to meet their needs. The D800 camera body is substantially imperfect as it exists today.
It’s not just about the image quality from the sensor. And even with regard to that remember that the D800 sensor is Sony’s accomplishment, not Nikon’s. If anything Sony’s 36MP monster shows how badly Nikon’s bodies & lenses have failed to keep pace with the demands of the sensor!
Dear Marco,
> kudos for challenging Iliah a bit
Saying “innovation in photography is pretty much DEAD!” is hardly challenging anything but common sense; and is an ugly thing to say – not just because the photography hardware, firmware, and software are rapidly progressing, but mainly because it means separation of oneself from photography. Progress in photography is far more than the progress in photography tools, if that even needs to be stated explicitly.
> why his perspective is so conventional & linear here
Well, things are not always like you see them.
> we should all be working together to push/pull Nikon forward
What is forward for one person is backward for another. I do not need an LCD on my Nikon cameras. I do not need PSA modes. I do not need on/off switch. I do not need G-lenses. I do not need JPEGs. I do not need white balance. I do not need video. Want me to push Nikon into that direction? Other folks suggest raw is not needed, or demand Nikon start FX mirrorless without having lenses, or a b/w camera. Is that what can keep a cameramaker afloat?
The answer to the diversity needed is not Nikon, or Canon, or SONY. It is open source camera, and modular camera. It is already possible today, but will take three to five years before it will hit the shelves.
Dear Iliah,
Going back & forth, point to point without font control tools is a bear, isn’t it?
>>> kudos for challenging Iliah a bit.
>> Saying “innovation in photography is pretty much DEAD!” is hardly challenging anything but common sense; and is an ugly thing to say.
As my posts have reflected, I obviously think there’s still much to fix in photography. JR’s sentiment here is the one I am agreeing with not the one above… “I’d like to keep chatting with you but not if you’re going to communicate through code and fragments.”
>>> we should all be working together to push/pull Nikon forward
>>What is forward for one person is backward for another.
Interpret this as a compliment. Because your work on RawDigger is respected by both of us I think both JR and I are especially keen to hear your ideas for what’s “forward” for you. You have to admit your earlier posts have been a little obtuse on that even as you’ve questioned the utility of other’s suggestions. While it’s clear JR thinks there’s no where substantial to go (at least in image quality), I definitely see some really easy things to fix/improve on Nikon’s camera bodies right now. It’s like the UI of today’s DSLR’s is like smartphones were before the Apple UI in the iPhone kicked up everyone’s game.
>>>The answer to the diversity needed is not Nikon, or Canon, or SONY. It is open source camera, and modular camera. It is already possible today, but will take three to five years before it will hit the shelves.
Agreed. Like Thom Hogan has proposed, a modular camera body that would allow users to substitute optimized sensors for various applications and would be a Godsend for photographers. I’d buy one last body and at least two sensors, maybe one more. Do I expect Nikon to give me this camera, however? No, not after witnessing them stubbornly refuse to give users a fully featured D400 or D750. Like Kodak, they are now so wed to their iterative business model they will probably drive it into the ground before going for something as radical as modular.
They really need to get rid of the old cameras from the lineup when they release a new one. It would be easy if they just had the 3300, 5300, 7100 for DX. Then consumers could easily look at that lineup and easily distinguish which level they wish to purchase. But when you also throw in a 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300 then you get really confused looking at the minor (if any) differences between them. The consumer then often makes mistakes buying an old and outdated system perhaps on the pressure of a sales person trying to clear their shelves. If they want to offer colors then that is ok for the lower end but still only have the latest version available.
It almost seems they are making the same mistake the auto industry did where you would have Ford, Chrysler, or GM offer essentially the exact same car but under 3 or 4 different nameplates. Look where that got them and how they have since narrowed down that practice. I see the camera makers (Canon and Nikon especially) heading down this same bad route. Choice is good for the consumer but only if the choices are clear and you can easily see the differences in order to make that choice.
Unfortunately it seems the camera makers are doing what failed in the auto industry. Too many models that don’t differ from each other. Remember how you would have the same car under 3 different names
I own a D700… sometime I am tempted to buy a new camera, but only because of size and weight. The IQ of D700 still surprises me, I don’t find the D800 etc so much better to justify the expense; but most important is the fact that more than 1/2 of the total weight is the lens, p.e. a 17-35 F2.8, and in FF that is unavoidable. M4/3 is lighter, but the IQ and bokeh are not comparable, as far as I can see up to now .
So, on my side, the DSLR evolution came to an end…
good for my pocket.
I agree. I too have a D700 for many years now and the IQ always amaze me. The cameras after the D700 have not attracted me enough to “upgrade” but I am getting old and the weight will eventually become a factor. I do not wish for a smaller form but a significant weight reduction will definitely be welcome. A 16 MP sensor and a flip screen will be all I need added to the D700. Hopefully Nikon can achieve the weight reduction with new materials.
Agreed!
I think that the digital camera is basically and finally good enough for most everyone. We’re back into the level of maturity that we saw at the end of the film era. That is not a bad thing as we can focus on lenses rather than upgrading our cameras every 2 years. Thom Hogan has coined this Last Camera Syndrome. I think this is part of the motivation behind the DF. We’re good enough now that people can consider buying an “heirloom” camera.
That said, for me I think I’m still one generation away from my “last camera”. The D600 scratched most of my itch, but I cannot for the life of me understand why GPS and wifi are still add-ons when most compact cameras include them. I also cannot understand why wifi cannot control exposure parameters or connect to a laptop. Top end shutter speed, flash sync and -3 EV focusing are also missing. But we’re very close.
Dear Sirs,
– a good and timely article. But, – it would realy be worse if Nikon (as representative) didn’t sell all this old models. Where would this old models go then?, – to the trash bin? Better they still are sold and used, giving not so wealthy buyers an alternative and a road into more complex photography. That I think is not so bad! :-)
You also miss something. We more often then wished, sees new models mostly equal the old one. Here, with 3300 and 5300 replacing 3200 and 5200 some important thing has happened: First the use of Exspeed4. – which I believe need twisting and trimming to get the best out of it, among one is bettering the low light processing of NEF and Jpeg. Next: The use of new production material, new reinforced plastic, where one need experience before using it on more pro models (eventually) ,for cheaper production? All in sum not a minor upgrade this time?
Good cameras sells lenses and good lenses sells cameras. In some ways Nikon seems to have forgotten it with DX. But the two last lenses: The consumer 18-55 and 18-140 is a step in right direction? I think Nikon still needs many new or upgraded enthusiast lenses DX format to support their good new bodies and hold up market position. I think most important is new 10-16, 16-50 2.8 and 70 1.8 portrait.
PhDAf developing: Nikons is fast and maybe the best for speed and tracking, but not always for precision. I think we will see some (many) years before the on sensor AF on big sensors is up to it. Realy I don’t like the use of image sensor as: Light meter, RGB sensor for tracking, contrast Af metering, Phase detect AF metering, Video, EVF reading and image sensor all at one time. Is it possibly this being optimal? Think of energy consume (enviroment issues), warm sensors and degrading of image. Therefore I still believe in using a form of mirror, maybe e flipping half transparent one, and a second sensor little like the image sensor, but with other functions placed where the ground glass is. A lot of the problems in todays two solutions can be solved in that way.
Still: Have a blessed New Year with a lot of interesting photography!
That happened in profesional boxing. In the seventies and eighties I knew who was the champion in every weight category. No you have so much organizations, weight categories and “champions”, that I stopped to follow the sport. Now I’m seeing MMA.
Typo correction: I wanted to say: “Now you have so much organizations…..”