News/Views | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan en Mon, 01 Jul 2019 16:22:10 -0400 Sandvox 2.10.12 The 20 Year Anniversary <div class="article-summary"><p>June 15th marked the twenty-year anniversary of Nikon's announcement of the D1, the camera that most feel kicked off the DSLR era. The camera actually didn't ship to customers until early 2000, but a number of us got a chance to use it briefly in 1999. </p> <div class="first graphic-container wide left ImageElement"> <div class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content"> <!-- sandvox.ImageElement --><img src="" alt="" width="800" height="510" /> <!-- /sandvox.ImageElement --></div> </div> </div><p>Upon initially handling the D1—despite its many modal UI flaws (all fixed in the D1h)—I knew that the serious photography world was about to change. </p><p><em>Yes, I'm well aware of and even used some of the Kodak SLR conversions and the Nikon/Fujifilm E2 experiment in the 90's. I don't dismiss those products, but it was clear with the D1 that something different was about to happen: a new era of cameras you would find in every camera store and which carried on the mantel from the SLR bodies. </em></p><p>It's illustrative to look at the specifications of that original D1 to see just how far we've come. </p><ul><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">2000 x 1312 megapixel images (3mp). </span></li><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">A top ISO of 1600 (base of 200). </span></li><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">An APS-C sized CCD image sensor producing 12 bits per photosite. </span></li><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">A 2" LCD with 130k dots. </span></li><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">A claimed top frame rate of 4.5 fps. </span></li><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">The F5 autofocus system. </span></li><li><span style="background-color: transparent;">All for US$5500. </span></li></ul><p>That frame rate turned out to be not quite true with the then current CompactFlash cards, particularly with the old Microdrive cards. Plus the buffer really worked out to be less than a dozen raw images (less than two dozen JPEGs).  </p> </div> Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:41:27 -0400 digitalphotographycameranikondslranniversaryd1 The Coming Cameras <div class="article-summary"><p><em>Updated</em></p><p>I like to do a "thought piece" every now and then premised on what I did through most of my career in Silicon Valley: look five to ten years out and try to understand what developing or new technologies could be used to solve current user problems. </p><p>One problem with doing that at the moment in the camera market is this: they aren't today where they should have perceived they needed to be five years ago. (Yes, that's a complex sentence. Read it again and make sure you understand it.)  In other words, they're already behind where they should/could be, therefore looking further forward may not be quite as useful as it ought to be. </p><p>For example, you're probably well aware that inside your cameras are a bunch of semiconductors, including the image sensor. One of the predictable things about semiconductors has been—though it's getting more problematic at the forward edge of progress—the reduction of what's called process size. As a placeholder, think of process size as the smallest possible transistor. The smaller the transistor, the more of those you can pack on a chip and the closer you can put them together (which provides quicker communication between them). Those two things mean more computational power at faster speeds (though heat dissipation can become an issue as you miniaturize).  </p></div> Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:57:29 -0400 digitalphotographycamerafuturetechnologyairiskmarketcontractioncommunicationcpugpu Are You Following Your Heart or Head? <div class="article-summary"><p>It's a simple thing, really: if you're confused about what to do and are contemplating changing gear, do you know whether you're following your heart or your head in your thinking? </p><p>I've written about wants and needs before, and it's the same thing:  </p><ul><li>Heart = want</li><li>Head = need</li></ul><p>Thing is, how you evaluate how well something actually "works" for you after purchasing and using it depends upon which of those two you're following. </p><p>What I'm seeing a lot of lately is that people following their heart (wants) end up not fully satisfied. Whether that be sampling another brand, switching to another brand, moving from DSLR to mirrorless, or any other Big Change option, their heart (wants) compels them to act, they act, and then they find something wanting (ironic, right? ;~). </p><p>Those following their head (needs) rarely end up in that situation. </p><p>When Canon and Nikon both say that they'll continue to serve the DSLR user, they're actually considering that there are heart versus head decisions being made in their user base. A long-time DSLR user, for instance, would be generally satisfied with the capabilities of any current camera. The things that they still need are likely to be more in the DSLR realm. The trick is whether or not Canon and Nikon can figure out what those are and produce them in a timely fashion. </p></div> Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:40:29 -0400 digitalphotographycameramirrorlessdslrnikoncanonolympicsheartheadwantneed Is Disinformation a Problem? <div class="article-summary"><p>We've got state actors attempting to influence other states' elections with disinformation. We've got lobbying organizations running campaigns with clear agendas. We have individuals who've discovered that they can be a big influencer of others by just typing on their keyboard. We have "numbers" published that are supposedly meaningful. </p><p>Have you ever thought about whether or not misinformation might be harming the photography market? </p><p>I have. </p><p>And it's not just outright misinformation, it's also information where the nuance is all reduced down to some overall numerical value (e.g. dpreview's "Overall Score", which I find mostly pointless).  </p><p>For instance, recently a flurry of messages came my way about DxOMark's rating for the 24-70mm f/4 S lens. In particular, the thing that comes up every time that DxOMark publishes a lens test these days is a number they report for "Sharpness." For the Nikkor in question, that number was 19, which is lower than the 20 given the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E, and more intriguingly, way lower than the 24 given the Sony-Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 ZA, a lens I long ago gave up on using because of its poor performance.  </p></div> Fri, 14 Jun 2019 08:00:45 -0400 digitalphotographycameralensdxomarknikonnikkor24-70mmreviewdisinformationstandardized How Do You Make the Mirrorless/DSLR Choice? <div class="article-summary"><p>It seems that despite my repeated efforts to try to put things into perspective, a number of people are still asking the same questions, typically along the lines of "should I buy a D750 or Z6"?  </p><p>That's certainly a good question, no matter how you're coming at it (e.g. from a D3500, a D610, or a competitor's camera). But it doesn't have a simple answer. </p><p>As I've tried to indicate, DSLRs aren't dead. They still have some advantages to them. Most of those center around the optical view of the world, the time-tested autofocus system, and the support for them (which ranges from lenses to accessories to repair facilities to education, and more).  </p><p>The optical view of the world does not impact your night vision. It doesn't slice time up into frames. It doesn't need a moment to turn on when it hasn't been in use for awhile. It doesn't drain batteries. (Technically, Nikon's DSLR viewfinder overlay system does drain batteries, but it'll take a month or so to do so.) </p><p>The DSLR autofocus system may have limitations (area covered, only face detect, many tricky attributes to learn, and issues of tolerance in some cases), but both Canon's and Nikon's current systems are fast, reliable, and consistent once you learn how to use them. (Unfortunately many people don't; they want "all automatic" systems to do <em>all</em> the heavy-lifting.) </p></div> Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:35:08 -0400 digitalphotographycameramirrorlessdslrchoicecanonnikonsony Cameras Shouldn't Dictate Self-Esteem <div class="article-summary"><p>One thing that becomes obvious very quickly when reading various comments across the Internet (or in my In Box), is that there's a very large proportion of active participants that have linked their self-esteem to their camera brand (or model, or type). </p><p>Indicators of this are comments about how well a product is (or isn't selling) relative to others, the superiority of one approach to another, minor differences in some measurement, and so on. </p><p>We've been in a land of plenty for quite some time. I first wrote the "if you can't get good prints the maximum size of a desktop inkjet with any current camera it's not the camera that's at fault" comment over a decade ago. It's absolutely true today.  </p><p>More often than not the "X is best" type of comments I see have nothing to do with actual picture results. Instead, they're attempts to justify a purchase, or a choice of model, or a brand choice.  </p><p>I've been spending a lot of time lately working through my older images, trying to get my file system cleaned up and realigned, partly because I need to make it easier to find specific example images for a project I'm working on. In looking at all these older images—many from cameras whose output won't fill my 5K Retina iMac screen at 100%—I'm finding that my basic assessment of most older models was pretty much right on the money with the benefit of hindsight. I can see small differences that could impact how I use an image, particularly in the pre-2007 or so cameras. </p></div> Sun, 09 Jun 2019 08:42:00 -0400 digitalphotographycameraself-esteemmegapixelsquality Frustration Versus Reality <div class="article-summary"><p>I've been encountering a lot of very frustrated—and in some cases, angry—folk lately. Moreover, the press sometimes seems to pile on without actually doing much in the way of fact checking or logical analysis.  </p><p>One example of this is the inability to understand inflation.  </p><p>Everyone's grumping about how "greedy" Apple is with the Mac Pro, for example. </p><p>First things first: you don't need one. The iMac 5K Retina is what most serious photographers should be using.  </p><p>But let's look at that high end Mac just a little more closely. Back in 1987 Apple introduced their first high-end Macintosh, the Macintosh II. With a 20MB drive and 13" color display it cost about US$7200. What's that in today's dollars (okay, end of 2018's dollars)? Why, that would be about US$15,800. Hmm, I'll bet you can get a usable 2019 Mac Pro with the 32" display for that price. </p><p>Hmm, so the Mac Pro is overpriced? If so, then the Macintosh II was overpriced. [Disclosure: I was the publisher and primary editor of The Macintosh II Report]. Indeed, we heard that exact same claim back in the late 80's about the Mac II (and the Mac Iix and Mac IIfx), and it went on to be a popular and useful tool for many. They were essentially state-of-the-art desktops that appealed to very high end clients. Most folk bought a Mac Plus, Mac SE, or Mac SE/30, though.  </p></div> Fri, 07 Jun 2019 08:59:00 -0400 digitalphotographycameracomputerapplemac propriceinflationnikon Sticking With DSLR? Don't Worry, be Happy <div class="article-summary"><p>With camera sales overall still contracting, and with so many players duking it out in full frame mirrorless and dangling discounts to grab business, it's easy to see the Dark Side of the situation. </p><p>But rest assured, DSLR users, there's a Bright Side, too.  </p><p>Because so many people who are picking up mirrorless bodies are dumping a fair amount of DSLR gear to pay for their "upgrade" (!?!?!), it's creating a situation in the refurbished, used, gray, and even new market where the prices are coming down for DSLR owners, too.  </p><p>The thing to pay attention to is the timing of new product introductions.  </p><p>For example, on the Nikon side, the brand new 24-70mm f/2.8 S is just a far better lens than the old F-mount 24-70mm f/2.8G; heck the fairly new 24-70mm f/4 S is better at equivalent apertures, in my opinion. Enough so that a lot of the transitioners are dumping their big, older mid-range zooms for the newer Z options. Sometime shortly after the Z lens introductions, prices on the oldest 24-70mm f/2.8 F-mount lenses started to drop.  </p></div> Sun, 26 May 2019 07:28:16 -0400 digitalphotographycameramirrorlessdslrused What's Likely to Go Away? <div class="article-summary"><p>The common theme you see now is that we're in a DSLR-to-mirrorless transition period. I would agree, but that doesn't mean that DSLRs go away completely, nor does it mean everything will go away. After all, Nikon is still building a high-end film SLR body and selling it (F6). </p><p>Transition, therefore, means "the majority of users" transfer from DSLR to mirrorless, and probably over a period of at least three or four years (has to do with update cycles, disposable income, age, and much more). But four years from now, there will still be DSLR users. </p><p>Both Canon and Nikon have said they'll continue to build DSLR products while building out their new mirrorless systems. Moreover, Sony is still selling their DSLR (SLT) products, despite not having introduced one for years (the A99m2 body was the last one in 2016, and the last Alpha mount lenses were introduced in 2015).  </p><p>So let's talk about what's likely to go away in DSLR land, what's likely to stay available, and why. </p><p style="font-size: 18px;"><strong><em>Canon</em></strong></p><p>It's no secret that the APS-C DSLRs are Canon's biggest bane at the moment. By my count, Canon still has 11 such models on the market they're trying to sell, including multiple generations of some products. Clearly, that will change. Canon executives themselves say so. </p></div> Wed, 22 May 2019 09:14:15 -0400 digitalphotographycameradslrmirrorlesscanonnikonpentaxsonygoing away Where Are We? (Update IV or V, I've Lost Count) <div class="article-summary"><p>For over a decade I've been writing the following about the currently-available digital cameras: "if you can't get good-looking prints at the maximum size a desktop printer can produce, it isn't the camera that's the problem." (The print size I'm referring to is basically 13x19", though we've gotten a few printers recently that could theoretically fit on a desktop and go beyond that.) </p> <div class="first graphic-container wide left ImageElement"> <div class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content"> <!-- sandvox.ImageElement --><img src="" alt="DenaliAK2004-08-13 0002" width="800" height="528" /> <!-- /sandvox.ImageElement --></div> </div> <div style="" class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content caption"><p><em>The 6mp D70. And yes, this image, with a lot of tender care in post processing, holds up quite well in a 19" print, despite seeming to only start with enough pixels for a 10" one. In fact, I processed it in a window on my monitor that was about 19" wide. </em></p></div> </div> </div><p><span style="background-color: transparent;">As I've noted in some earlier articles, I've been using this rainy spring to go through my image files (all the way back to 1992). Those come from dozens of different cameras and brands and hundreds of lenses. Nothing I've seen so far says that the quoted remark at the top of this article isn't true.</span></p><p>So what is the problem? Why might you not get good-looking photos? And where do we really stand with today's products? Where might we go next? </p><p><strong><em>What is the Problem?</em></strong></p><p>So if the camera isn't the problem with getting bad looking images, what is? The shorthand answer is: </p><ul><li><strong><em>Bad setting decisions</em></strong> — poor exposure, poor JPEG settings, wrong white balance, wrong shutter speed (motion), wrong aperture (focus), and so on.</li><li><strong><em>Bad shot discipline</em></strong> — poor handholding, support that isn't, poor timing.</li><li><strong><em>Wrong lens</em></strong> — too much cropping, observable lens fault for the subject (e.g. linear distortion for architecture, vignetting for landscape, etc.).</li><li><strong><em>Bad processing</em></strong> — too much or improper sharpening, wrong colors, too much saturation, improper white/black levels, incorrect noise reduction, wacky contrast decisions.</li></ul><p>I've seen plenty of all four of these things in imagery from others when they begin complaining about their camera.  </p> </div> Sun, 19 May 2019 07:53:43 -0400 digitalphotographycameramarketproblemstatus My Shortest Essay On the Camera Market Yet <div class="article-summary"><p>In dealing with all the feedback from my article on the Brutal Quarter, I found myself responding with a simple truth. </p><p>All the Japanese camera companies are thinking of and phrasing the smartphone cannibalization as a business problem. As in "the smartphone killed the camera business."  </p><p>This is incorrect thinking. It's a customer problem: "the smartphone stole our customer." </p><p>What you do about a problem in business always devolves to whether you've defined the problem correctly.  </p><p><strong>There is <em>no</em> shortage of customers who want to take photos and share them. There <em>is</em> a shortage of cameras that let people do that quickly and simply. </strong></p></div> Thu, 16 May 2019 08:10:20 -0400 digitalphotographycameramarket The Brutal Quarter <div class="article-summary"><p>Now that everyone has reported their detailed financial information we can see just how bad the January through March numbers were. Here are the overall sales (dollars) reported for the quarter compared to the same quarter last year: </p><ul><li>Canon down 23%</li><li>Sony down 7%</li><li>Nikon down 21%</li><li>Fujifilm down 3% </li><li>Olympus down 24%</li><li>Ricoh (Pentax) up 4%</li><li>Overall camera shipments (CIPA) were down 25% in dollars</li><li>Overall lens shipments (CIPA) were down 13% in dollars</li></ul><p>That's pretty grim, overall. All total, the published financials we can track—Panasonic doesn't provide numbers that we can use—were down 16.7% overall in terms of dollars, year-to-year (e.g. first quarter 2018 compared to first quarter 2019).  </p><p>I'm pretty sure that set of numbers has set off panic in Tokyo. It wouldn't matter whether you're one of the ones with only modest drops or one of those with big drops, because the net net is that the overall market shrank big time.  </p><p>I don't yet have a complete set of numbers broken out in sub-categories where I could absolutely determine what happened, but the numbers I do have seem to suggest that the higher end (particularly full frame, and particularly mirrorless) is holding serve better than the lower end (particularly crop sensor consumer DSLRs).  </p></div> Sat, 11 May 2019 08:18:49 -0400 digitalphotographycameramarketcontractionsalesdropmirrorlessfinancialinformationquarter2019dslr Nikon's Full Year Results <div class="article-summary"><p>Nikon reported the same thing we've been seeing from the other camera companies: the January to March quarter was pretty miserable. Miserable enough that Nikon missed by 3% on revenue and profit on the already downgraded estimates they made not too long ago. </p><p>I'm going to cut to the chase: Nikon's forecast for the coming four quarters (their fiscal year). It's pretty dismal, too. ILC body sales go from 2.06m units to 1.6m, a decline of 22%. Lens sales go from 3.17m units to 2.6m, a decline of 18%. Compact cameras go from 1.6m units to 1m units, a decline of 37%. Simply put: Nikon is still in contraction mode. And Nikon projects the market to be in similar contraction, as well. </p> <div class="first graphic-container wide left ImageElement"> <div class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content"> <!-- sandvox.ImageElement --><img src="" alt="bythom nikon ilcquarterly" width="800" height="555" /> <!-- /sandvox.ImageElement --></div> </div> <div style="" class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content caption"><p style="text-align: center;"><strong><em>Nikon's Quarterly ILC Volume</em></strong></p></div> </div> </div><p>This puts Nikon's market share at 18.8% for ILC, a historic low in the decades I've been following them. Lenses? 17.9%, also a historic low. Compacts? 16.7% market share, not exactly a historic low, but this market is really one where the last company standing will be left closing the door.  </p><p>In my other article today on <a href="">Nikon's Management Goals</a>, I note their emphasis on moving to mostly full frame. Nikon says that full frame sales have increased for two years in a row now, and I'd bet they think they can do that again. But given their projections for the year and other comments, that means that they're thinking the market defined by the D5, D750, D850, Z6, and Z7 are where they need to be putting their efforts. </p> </div> Thu, 09 May 2019 09:32:05 -0400 digitalphotographycameranikondslrmirrorlessfiscalyearresultsfinancial Wrong or Right Strategy? <div class="article-summary"><p>The discussions of the first quarter camera sales that are going on all around the photographic community—they're bad—keeps popping up a comment that I believe is incorrect. </p><p>That comment is something along the lines of "the continued and now rapid drop in sales shows that the strategy of going up-scale doesn't work."  </p><p>Well, it does and it doesn't.  </p><p>What the camera companies are doing is trying to keep profitable, despite the declining marketplace. You can see that best in the mirrorless camera market, where volume is not increasing, but the dollars taken in are. That's a direct result of a high-end push (e.g. everything from the X-T3 to the GFX cameras for Fujifilm, and the full frame cameras from Canon, Nikon, and Sony).  </p><p>Pretty much everyone seems to be in the position where they think they'll live with the contraction in units as long as they can stay profitable. Canon and Sony have already reported being profitable for the terrible Q1 2019 quarter, Nikon probably will, too.  </p><p>So the repeated comment I keep seeing is incorrect. </p></div> Tue, 30 Apr 2019 07:18:34 -0400 Market Share or Profit? <div class="article-summary"><p>The ILC market peaked in terms of unit volume back around 2012. We appear to be about to cross the "contract by half" threshold in terms of volume this year or next. The amount the camera makers received for their units has not quite fallen as much, but is also in deep contraction. </p><p>Most of the camera makers have at one point or another stated that they're going upscale. To use Sony's language: "improvement in the product mix reflecting a shift to high value-added models."  </p><p>So you see some interesting things as you peruse the financial reports that might confuse you in the short term. Again using Sony as an example, unit volume of digital cameras went down from 4.4m to 3.6m (-18%) while operating income (profit before corporate things and taxes) went up from 74.9b yen to 84b (+12%).  </p><p>Of course, you have to read closer. Buried in Sony's reporting is that their Imaging Products &amp; Solutions group had a miserable January through March, just like Canon just reported. Traditionally that quarter is the worst performing for the camera companies, but Sony showed a 73% drop in operating profit year-to-year.  </p></div> Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:58:47 -0400 digitalphotographycameramarketcanonnikonsonyilcdslrmirrorlesssharecontractionprofit More Canon Negativity on the Market <div class="article-summary"><p>Canon today posted the results from the first quarter of this year, along with their revised expectations for 2019.  </p><p>Let's look at things quarter by quarter for the past few years: </p> <div class="first graphic-container wide center ImageElement"> <div class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content"> <!-- sandvox.ImageElement --><img src="" alt="bythom canon quarterly" width="430" height="288" /> <!-- /sandvox.ImageElement --></div> </div> </div><p>The orange lines are the unit volume for ILC (DSLRs and mirrorless), the yellow lines are for compact cameras. The solid line is the actual quarterly results, while the dotted line is the linear trend line. </p><p>The eyebrow raiser in Canon's new projections for 2019 was this: total ILC market is projected at 8.6 million units, with Canon shipping 4.2 million of those (49%) market share. Note that CIPA's forecast earlier this year was 10m units. Somewhere between that and Canon's new statement the market appears to have shrunk 14%. Given that Canon is about half of the market, any assessment of weakness in shipments they claim has to be taken very seriously. I'm not aware of any other company in CIPA that would have forecast increases in sales that would make up for Canon's decreases. Not even close. </p><p>As for DSLRs versus mirrorless, Canon made four statements on that you should be aware of: </p> </div> Wed, 24 Apr 2019 07:09:05 -0400 digitalphotographycanoncamerafinancials2019q1dslrmirrorlessmarket sharemarketilccipa Random Questions Answered <div class="article-summary"><p><strong><em>Should I buy those rubberized protective covers/shields for my lens or camera?</em></strong></p><p>Maybe. In terms of damage protection, the main thing they do is prevent scratches and brassing. Some provide a little more protection against the elements (though watch out for water getting between the cover and the camera and being held there). Most tend to obscure controls or make them more difficult to use, and the lens coverings tend to slip and get in the way at some point. But in terms of impact damage, I'm not sure they help much, if at all. </p><p>If you handle your gear roughly and can tolerate the change in feel and access to controls, then these covers may be an inexpensive way to keep your gear in just a little better cosmetic shape. But don't think that they make your gear invulnerable to weather or damage. They don't.  </p><p>Personally, I've tried a number of the options here and virtually always end up taking them off.  </p><p><strong><em>Should I buy a protective cover for the rear LCD?</em></strong></p><p>Slightly different story here. The lower cost your body is, the less protective the top layer over the LCD is, and it will be more prone to scratching. Nikon's top body, the D5, has a much more robust tempered glass cover that doesn't let the LCD scratch nearly as easy as a lower cost body, such as the D7500. Nikon used to provide clip-on protectors with the DSLRs, but that's no longer the case. </p></div> Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:23:26 -0400 digitalphotographycameramirrorlessdslrfaqquestionssensorprotection Introducing "Consolidators" <div class="article-summary"><p>Over the past decade I've described a number of common photographer gear types I've discovered through my research and surveys. For those of you who haven't followed along: </p><ul><li><em><strong>Last Camera Syndrome</strong> (LCS)—</em> These folks buy a new camera, discover how good it is, and are done with buying camera gear, as they perceive that what they now have should last them the rest of their foreseeable photographic future. They don't need better, so they stop seeking it out. The major things that might get them to buy again are: (1) their gear is lost or stolen; (2) their gear is dropped and fixing costs more than replacing; and (3) something dramatically different comes along that clearly solves a problem they've been having. #3 is rare. It happens maybe once a decade or longer. Many in this group are also older, having grown from SLR to DSLR to perhaps mirrorless. Last Camera may be literal for many.</li><li><strong><em>Leakers</em></strong> — You're a leaker when you get to the point where you believe that the camera brand you originally bought into will not catch up and give you something you perceive another camera brand to have. Sometimes this is technology, as it was with on-sensor image stabilization. Other times it is something not easy to measure, such as focusing speed or accuracy. The operative point here, though, is the perception that their chosen brand is letting them down in some way, and that's not changing fast enough for them. Thus, they'll pick up something out of their brand and try it in order to verify their suspicions that their brand has fallen behind. This also means that this group has a fair amount of disposable income.</li><li><em><strong>Switchers</strong> —</em> Leakers have a tendency to turn into switchers. That's because they discover that they were right: the alternative brand does have features, performance, or user experience that was better than what their originally chosen brand offers. You go from being a leaker to a switcher at the point where you start selling your old gear to get the money to buy the new gear.</li><li><strong><em>Samplers</em></strong> — These folk have enough disposable income coupled with paranoia that they are constantly picking up cameras that they <em>might</em> use because they're afraid they're missing out on something. Strong marketing messages tend to easily sway these folk into thinking that gear fixes whatever photographic problem they might think they have. Samplers are different than leakers in that leakers are pretty sure about what they're missing out on and seek it out specifically, while samplers are just casting about looking for something they can't easily define.</li></ul><p>All these groups can be identified in both the film SLR and the DSLR eras. We had LCS folk and samplers in the film era, for sure. But I think I can identify leakers and switchers in the film days, too.  </p><p>One thing that happened in the film to digital transition, though, is that we got another group: consolidators. We need a definition for that: </p><ul><li><strong style="font-style: italic;">Consolidators</strong> — Someone consolidates when they decide to get rid of all the gear on their shelves they're not using and restrict themselves to a smaller set of new gear that fully meets their needs. Typically, consolidation only happens on a big transition point (e.g. film to digital, or now DSLR to mirrorless). In the case of all four groups I identified in the first part of this article, many just keep a lot of the older gear they have, just in case. A few will sell off a few things that they obviously don't need, but they often keep a lot of extra gear around that they don't really continue using. Consolidation happens when they realize that they're making a major transition of some sort, and just how much equipment they have will simply not be productive for them in the future, so they stop hoarding it. </li></ul><p>I'm seeing a fair amount of consolidators suddenly appearing on my radar, both anecdotally and measurably. It's being mostly driven by this: full frame mirrorless systems.  </p><p>Those that have decided to take one of the current journeys of transition—Canon EF to RF, Nikon F to Z, Minolta/Sony A to Sony FE—start to realize that (a) getting a fully mirrorless system is costly, so maybe they can find some dollars to buy new gear by selling the old; (b) some of their old gear is truly closet ridden and not really in use any more; (c) the transition truly obsoletes some gear; and (d) image sensors and lenses have absolutely gotten better recently, so the older stuff in the closet just doesn't live up to the same standard. </p></div> Sat, 20 Apr 2019 10:47:55 -0400 digitalphotographycameralastsyndromeleakerswitchersamplerconsolidatordslrmirrorlessfull framecrop sensor The Giant Nikkor DSLR Lens Sale <div class="article-summary"><p>Today NikonUSA announced savings on more than two dozen lenses. As always, I'm going to give you advice about how the new pricing should impact your decision making. This time, though, I'm going to go about that a little differently, and split my comments into three logical groupings of lenses: bargains, good value, and not so interesting. </p><p><strong>Clear Bargain Lenses</strong></p><p>In this category I put lenses that I believe the new pricing now puts (or keeps) a lens clearly in the bargain bin. By that I mean that the price is very, very good for the performance of the lens. As many of you know, that's a bit of a rarity for Nikon; we don't get a lot of "bargain Nikkors." Nikon has tended to have very few lenses that I would consider a bargain. Thus, if you've been contemplating any of the following lenses, Nikon is dangling a tasty little discount carrot in front of you, and I'm saying bite. </p><ul><li><strong><em>10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G DX (US$280)</em></strong> — For DX users, this is has been an inexpensive way to get a reasonably good wide angle zoom since it first appeared. Not the greatest lens in the WA zoom realm, but surprisingly good for the original price, and now with a bit of a monetary sweetener from NikonUSA. The lenses in this category show that Nikon knows how to make things that perform well above their price point. My <a href="">review of the 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G</a>.</li><li><strong><em>70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E (US$550)</em></strong> — This lens was already what I consider a bargain (great performance for the price), so the modest discount just makes that better. You really can't beat its performance at this price. Not from any vendor, actually. For Z users, this is the telephoto zoom you should be putting on your FTZ adapter when traveling. My <a href="">review of the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E.</a></li><li><strong><em>85mm f/1.8G (US$430)</em></strong> — A very nice lens for a near bargain price. I was tempted to put it in the good value category, but the more I thought about it, the more the price now seems to be touching on bargain for the performance. My <a href="">review of the 85mm f/1.8G.</a></li><li><strong><em>200-500mm f/5.6E (US$1260)</em></strong> — Like the 70-300mm, the 200-500mm was already a bargain for what it does, so again, the modest discount just makes things nicer. You really can't beat this performance at this price. And yes, at 45mp on the D850, this lens is still performing well. The only real downside I see to this lens is that it is awkward to zoom. My <a href="">review of the 200-500mm f/5.6E.</a></li></ul><p>Support this site by purchasing these Thom bargain lenses from the following advertiser: </p> <div class="first wide center"> <div style="" class="graphic"> <div class="figure-content HTMLElement"> <iframe width="300" scrolling="no" height="250" frameborder="0" style="border:none;" border="0" src="" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0"><p>Your browser does not support iFrame.</p></iframe> </div> </div> </div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-weight: 700;">Good Value Lenses</span></p><p>Many of Nikon's discounts just put a somewhat better price on a good lens you probably wanted or needed. The lenses in this category are ones that I tend to review well in terms of capability, but may have seemed high priced or over priced to some. Or they were priced right to begin with, and the new discount makes them more tempting. NikonUSA's new pricing does take some of the sting off their usual cash demands from us Nikoneers, so it's a good time to pick up one or more of these lenses if you've been contemplating them. </p> </div> Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:50:54 -0400 digitalphotographycameralensdslrf-mountnikkornikonsale How Nikon's Pricing Changes the DSLRs <div class="article-summary"><p>Today NikonUSA announced new pricing on their DSLR lineup, as well as some additional instant rebates <span style="background-color: transparent;">through the end of June. Some of these changes are big enough that we need to talk through how the price moves may change your outlook on the Nikon DSLR cameras:</span> </p><ul><li><strong><em>D5600</em></strong> — instant rebates take the body to US$550. As you might note, the D5600 is looking somewhat awkward between the price leader D3500 and the now very affordable D7500. I'm not sure why you buy the D5600 body, even at this price. Good thing the body plus kit lens is the same price, and the two lens kit is US$600. In essence, one lens for free, two lenses for US$50. Get your DX here... Get your DX here... </li><li><strong><em>D7500</em></strong> — MSRP has reduced US$250, plus an instant rebate of US$200. At the US$800 mark for this body, it's virtually a no-brainer update choice for D80, D90, D7000, and D7100 users. It's also a very strong candidate for D3xxx and D5xxx upgraders, too. Just remember that the D7500 has a couple of drawbacks that a few may find problematic: no AI lens indexing (older manual focus lenses), and no provision for adding a vertical grip. Other than that, it's a really strong camera I enjoy using. Reasonably small, highly capable, and now at the right price. My <a href="">review of the D7500</a>. </li><li><strong><em>D500</em></strong> — MSRP has reduced US$200, plus now an instant rebate of US$200. US$1500 is a price point the D500 has been at before, so Nikon's discounting isn't really pushing into new territory here as it is with the D7500. Indeed, the differential between the D7500 and D500 is now quite pronounced. They use the same image sensor, so image quality really doesn't change between them. You're paying a big premium for the D5 style autofocus system and some other higher-end options. That said, there's not a better crop sensor body for sports or wildlife action shots than the D500. The D500 plus 16-80mm f/2.8-4 is US$2100, which is amusingly US$300 more than D750 with a near equivalent lens. My <a href="">review of the D500</a>.</li><li><strong><em>D610</em></strong> — instant rebate of US$100. We must be nearing the very tail of the D610's life, as Nikon isn't being at all aggressive with this model. At the current pricing, get the D750 instead.</li><li><strong><em>D750</em></strong> — MSRP has reduced US$300, plus now an instant rebate of US$400. The new US$1300 price is an extremely good one for a highly competent full frame DSLR. I'd argue that this is more than enough camera for most people. The aggressive pricing, however, would seem to indicate that a D750 replacement is in the wings (or less likely: that it will be retired completely in favor of the Z6). The D750 has always been a model where Nikon has tended to be aggressive in pricing, but this is a new level of aggressiveness on their part. In fact, with the 24-120mm f/4 lens, you get a body/lens bundle for US$1800, which is a pretty amazing number considering the capability you're getting. My <a href="">review of the D750</a>.</li><li><strong><em>D850</em></strong> — instant rebate of US$300. Not a lot new here, but this gets the body price under the US$3000 mark and more competitive with the high resolution full frame mirrorless cameras (including Nikon's own Z7, which also goes on sale). I still say this is the DSLR you want to get if you want the most well-rounded, capable camera. It's a competent 19mp DX camera for wildlife, it's a great 45mp landscape camera, and it's a jack of all trades in between. My <a href="">review of the D850</a>.</li></ul><p>I should note that the Z6 and Z7 mirrorless cameras are also getting instant rebates (up to US$200 and US$600 respectively). Thus, those considering the D750 and D850 have to keep that in mind. My take? That new D750 pricing means you <em>really</em> have to want to move from DSLR to mirrorless to opt for a Z6. The D850 price shows that Nikon doesn't really care if you buy DSLR or mirrorless at 45mp. </p><p>I should also mention that the four Nikon cameras I've tended to use in the last year are the D5, D850, Z6, and Z7. I still use the D7500 for product shots. But other than that, I've mostly moved on from the other Nikon cameras. I don't know if that tells you anything useful or not, but those opting for a D500, D610, or D750 really need to be sure of their decision now, I think.  </p></div> Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:26:35 -0400 digitalphotographycameradslrnikond3500d5600d7500d500pricesaled610d750d850