Is Nikon Greedy?

[vieri]

And film can't hold a candle to todays digital IQ, but it certainly was good enough.

...it all depends on your definition of IQ, of course...

 

[Player]

I know a lot of photographers that eagerly await every hint of a rumor or announcement as to what is next.
When true volume-recording holographic-molecular-resolution 0-infinity dof dial-a-moment experience recorders start shipping at a consumer friendly price, then they might start thinking that they might be able to stand pat - OR - the engineers and the customers both run out of ideas.
-bob

Bob, ever notice that the great photographers, the masters, don't even talk about equipment unless pressed. All they want to talk about is pictures, but these types of photographers aren't Nikon's target anyway.

 

[Player]

...it all depends on your definition of IQ, of course...

Of course, but let's be reasonable.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Bob, ever notice that the great photographers, the masters, don't even talk about equipment unless pressed. All they want to talk about is pictures, but these types of photographers aren't Nikon's target anyway.

Actually, I have not noticed that. Most great photographers that I have talked to or read about are very passionate about the cameras they use. The most recent one I talked to was Mary Ellen Mark and we were chatting about how much we loved the Mamiya 7II and how great a company Mamiya was. Eikoh Hosoe said pretty much the same thing. And of course Ansel Adams wrote volumes about equipment and its role in making a great image. HCB was very passionate about his Leicas and Contaxes. Yes, the image rules, but the great ones are very concerned with the image, which means they are very particular about what they use to make it!

 

[Player]

Actually, I have not noticed that. Most great photographers that I have talked to or read about are very passionate about the cameras they use. The most recent one I talked to was Mary Ellen Mark and we were chatting about how much we loved the Mamiya 7II and how great a company Mamiya was. Eikoh Hosoe said pretty much the same thing. And of course Ansel Adams wrote volumes about equipment and its role in making a great image. HCB was very passionate about his Leicas and Contaxes. Yes, the image rules, but the great ones are very concerned with the image, which means they are very particular about what they use to make it!

They're definitely particular, but not (pardon the pun) focused on it.

Haven't you read any of the numerous interviews where a camera isn't even mentioned? I could get specific if I had to, but I'm not really trying to prove anything.

 

[Bob]

Bob, ever notice that the great photographers, the masters, don't even talk about equipment unless pressed. All they want to talk about is pictures, but these types of photographers aren't Nikon's target anyway.

The ones I have met are really into their gear. Also, painters are keen on their materials, and certainly you have heard of a violinist or two that cared about the type of instrument they were playing.

What is your point and what does it have to do with your initial premise? Which premise, I think, has been more than adequately dispensed with by several posters.
-bob

 

[vieri]

a little IQ-related deviation from the topic...

Of course, but let's be reasonable.

...hmm - ok, I'll call you on this one: what is it that you do find superior in digital images compared to film images, when it comes to IQ?

I would start offering the following parameters to the discussion:
- out we take convenience & speed in getting the image processed, flexibility in post-processing and the like (digital wins, of course, but these aren't parameters of IQ, they are parameters of practicality);
- clean high ISO IMHO isn't necessarily an improvement against grainy & gritty images, especially when we talk about BW (we talk about IQ here, a very subjective thing - and adding grain to digital images never looks as good as film grain, so I'll rule it out) - so I'd say this is an even one, depending on the subject, the shoot condition, the intended look, etc;
- color consistency is better on film IMHO (no struggling with different RAW converters giving you different results, WB problems, etc - unless a film manufacturer changes the emulsion's formula, you can be pretty sure that Provia is looking like Provia);
- BW looks definitely better on film;
- film doesn't have that digital plastic look that many digital cameras have;

...just the first thoughts that came to mind, now back to you, I am curious to see what you (and the forum) thinks about all this

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Well, if the interview is about the work itself and if the interviewer does not mention the equipment, why would they bring it up? I am not saying that all great photographers are gear heads, I am saying that those that I have met have been very particular about their gear. Even the people who are very much NOT gearheads care about gear. I was assisting for a photographer last week who was shooting a hasselblad 503 and a phase one back. She was not a gearhead at all...but one of the first things she mentioned was how much she disliked the H series hasselblads and how much better she liked the Zeiss lenses.

I guess it is just like any other vocation or field that requires the combination of people and tools. Race car drivers are specific about their cars, skiers their skis, bikers their bikes, carpenters their hammers and so on. It does not mean that they couldn't do the job with something different, but there are few who do not care at all.

 

[Player]

The ones I have met are really into their gear. Also, painters are keen on their materials, and certainly you have heard of a violinist or two that cared about the type of instrument they were playing.

What is your point and what does it have to do with your initial premise? Which premise, I think, has been more than adequately dispensed with by several posters.
-bob

It seems that the original premise was only "adequately dispensed" in the poster's own minds. I still believe that photographers are being taken for a ride, and maybe upgradable cameras aren't the answer, but neither does the answer lie where the camera companies are leading us.

I never wanted to offend or upset anyone, just question why digital equipment will never be "good" enough, and why everyone feeds into the madness without questioning the sanity of it all.

This is why I pointed-out, earlier in the thread, that discussions like this are largely a waste of time. It's like trying to divert a moth from the path to the flame. It's been fun though.

Thanks so much for the replies!

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Player
A little cautionary tale:
Kodak did this with the 14n 4(?) years ago, they had an upgradeable sensor. After the 14n had been out for about a year, they created the SLR/n, and there was an option for 14n users to upgrade to the new sensor and firmware for 1/3 price of a new camera (this was also full frame, and the reality was that the profit was very low).

The internet forums screamed and howled, saying that they should have supplied the perfect sensor in the first place, and if not, then they should give everyone a free upgrade.
_____________________

The reality of modern cameras is that all the electronics work together - this means that if you change the sensor, you need to change pretty much everything except the body and the shutter. The work involved in doing this would almost certainly be more than the value of the body/shutter that was left.

Upgrading complex electronic equipment is almost never financially viable - you are losing all the economies of scale and having to resort to short production lines and expensive skilled labour.

In real terms, a D700 is probably considerably cheaper than a Nikon F100 of 10 years ago, all the parts that you would have been able to replace in that Nikon you'll be able to replace in the D700 as well

As for you D200 - the processing equipment certainly wouldn't be man enough to produce a decent speed of operation with the new sensor, so that would need replacing as well as the sensor - add the cost of shipping to and from (wherever) to get it done, the cost of the skilled labour and the cost of the parts . . . . .

 

[Player]

Re: a little IQ-related deviation from the topic...

...hmm - ok, I'll call you on this one: what is it that you do find superior in digital images compared to film images, when it comes to IQ?

I would start offering the following parameters to the discussion:
- out we take convenience & speed in getting the image processed, flexibility in post-processing and the like (digital wins, of course, but these aren't parameters of IQ, they are parameters of practicality);
- clean high ISO IMHO isn't necessarily an improvement against grainy & gritty images, especially when we talk about BW (we talk about IQ here, a very subjective thing - and adding grain to digital images never looks as good as film grain, so I'll rule it out) - so I'd say this is an even one, depending on the subject, the shoot condition, the intended look, etc;
- color consistency is better on film IMHO (no struggling with different RAW converters giving you different results, WB problems, etc - unless a film manufacturer changes the emulsion's formula, you can be pretty sure that Provia is looking like Provia);
- BW looks definitely better on film;
- film doesn't have that digital plastic look that many digital cameras have;

...just the first thoughts that came to mind, now back to you, I am curious to see what you (and the forum) thinks about all this

No, I don't believe that digital is superior to film. It's just the prevailing wisdom based mostly on "grain-free" maximum print sizes. And it's fruitless trying to discuss the essence of image quality since the two mediums are entirely different, but the point is that both are just about as adequate as they can be for most intended purchases, snapshots, weddings, publications, newspapers. And digital will never be film, just like a cat will never be a dog.

I agree with you though, I'd take film anyday. I just think it looks better.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Player
A little cautionary tale:
Kodak did this with the 14n 4(?) years ago, they had an upgradeable sensor. After the 14n had been out for about a year, they created the SLR/n, and there was an option for 14n users to upgrade to the new sensor and firmware for 1/3 price of a new camera (this was also full frame, and the reality was that the profit was very low).

The internet forums screamed and howled, saying that they should have supplied the perfect sensor in the first place, and if not, then they should give everyone a free upgrade.
_____________________

The reality of modern cameras is that all the electronics work together - this means that if you change the sensor, you need to change pretty much everything except the body and the shutter. The work involved in doing this would almost certainly be more than the value of the body/shutter that was left.

Upgrading complex electronic equipment is almost never financially viable - you are losing all the economies of scale and having to resort to short production lines and expensive skilled labour.

In real terms, a D700 is probably considerably cheaper than a Nikon F100 of 10 years ago, all the parts that you would have been able to replace in that Nikon you'll be able to replace in the D700 as well

As for you D200 - the processing equipment certainly wouldn't be man enough to produce a decent speed of operation with the new sensor, so that would need replacing as well as the sensor - add the cost of shipping to and from (wherever) to get it done, the cost of the skilled labour and the cost of the parts . . . . .

I never wanted to offend or upset anyone, just question why digital equipment will never be "good" enough, and why everyone feeds into the madness without questioning the sanity of it all.

I'm sure nobody is offended.
Surely, if your D200 was 'good enough' when you got it, then it's STILL 'good enough'. You seem to be attacking the idea of improving digital cameras at all?

I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that after all these years nobody makes the camera I want (small, high resolution). But I recognise that's my problem.
Your problem seems to be that any new developments will make your purchase redundant (I think Sony are the worst culprit here), but the truth is, it only makes it 'last year's model', and if you aren't satisfied with it for that reason, then it's not the fault of the manufacturer, and it's tough to expect them to stop new developments so as not to upset you!

 

[Player]

Well, if the interview is about the work itself and if the interviewer does not mention the equipment, why would they bring it up? I am not saying that all great photographers are gear heads, I am saying that those that I have met have been very particular about their gear. Even the people who are very much NOT gearheads care about gear. I was assisting for a photographer last week who was shooting a hasselblad 503 and a phase one back. She was not a gearhead at all...but one of the first things she mentioned was how much she disliked the H series hasselblads and how much better she liked the Zeiss lenses.

I guess it is just like any other vocation or field that requires the combination of people and tools. Race car drivers are specific about their cars, skiers their skis, bikers their bikes, carpenters their hammers and so on. It does not mean that they couldn't do the job with something different, but there are few who do not care at all.

Point well taken Stuart, I was just trying to say that there is a difference between your stereotypical pixel peeper and the artist focused on creating compelling images. I would never be foolish enough to say that an artist has no interest in their tools. Of course they do, but it's more a question of emphasis.

 

[Player]

Hi Player
A little cautionary tale:
Kodak did this with the 14n 4(?) years ago, they had an upgradeable sensor. After the 14n had been out for about a year, they created the SLR/n, and there was an option for 14n users to upgrade to the new sensor and firmware for 1/3 price of a new camera (this was also full frame, and the reality was that the profit was very low).

The internet forums screamed and howled, saying that they should have supplied the perfect sensor in the first place, and if not, then they should give everyone a free upgrade.
_____________________

The reality of modern cameras is that all the electronics work together - this means that if you change the sensor, you need to change pretty much everything except the body and the shutter. The work involved in doing this would almost certainly be more than the value of the body/shutter that was left.

Upgrading complex electronic equipment is almost never financially viable - you are losing all the economies of scale and having to resort to short production lines and expensive skilled labour.

In real terms, a D700 is probably considerably cheaper than a Nikon F100 of 10 years ago, all the parts that you would have been able to replace in that Nikon you'll be able to replace in the D700 as well

As for you D200 - the processing equipment certainly wouldn't be man enough to produce a decent speed of operation with the new sensor, so that would need replacing as well as the sensor - add the cost of shipping to and from (wherever) to get it done, the cost of the skilled labour and the cost of the parts . . . . .



I'm sure nobody is offended.
Surely, if your D200 was 'good enough' when you got it, then it's STILL 'good enough'. You seem to be attacking the idea of improving digital cameras at all?

I'm constantly frustrated by the fact that after all these years nobody makes the camera I want (small, high resolution). But I recognise that's my problem.
Your problem seems to be that any new developments will make your purchase redundant (I think Sony are the worst culprit here), but the truth is, it only makes it 'last year's model', and if you aren't satisfied with it for that reason, then it's not the fault of the manufacturer, and it's tough to expect them to stop new developments so as not to upset you!

Well said Jono, but I strongly disagree that this thread has been about my personal situation with a D200. I actually felt I was sticking up for all photographers against the 800 pound gorillas, in theory anyway.

It's just that the writing is on the wall in that these cameras will never be good enough, and photographers will buy into that, but what about the photo's end usage? Isn't that what really matters when making a determination on whether or not someone should buy that new piece of gear? But I doubt that that important factor is ever seriously considered. If it was, many fewer cameras would be sold, but in fact they're flying off the shelves.

I wouldn't start a thread to try to defend the fact that I have a D200. I can buy any camera I want, anytime I want. And that's certainly no big deal, just the truth. I know what you mean about photographers who sacrificed and scrimped and saved to buy their camera, and then they are resentful when a new model comes out and they try to prove that the new camera isn't any better than the old one. I'm not in that category, and neither is this thread. Just want to make that crystal clear.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

No worries Player, I understand what you mean. I certainly think there is a big difference between the pixel peepers and people who are very particular about their tools.

As for the ongoing change in equipment, I think it is a fundamental component of human nature. We are always looking for the next thing, trying to improve old things and be original. The desire for progress is just part of us -- as such, if a camera company can improve something, they will. Perhaps I am more inherently trusting in corporations, but I don't think they are really out to get us. CEO's are people too! I know that is not a popular stance these days, let alone from a raging liberal like myself! There are certainly a lot of crooks out there, but I think the camera business is a relative haven from this sort of thing. If you want to see dirty, try investment banking, hedge funds and subprime mortgage markets.

 

[jonoslack]

Well said Jono, but I strongly disagree that this thread has been about my personal situation with a D200. I actually felt I was sticking up for all photographers against the 800 pound gorillas, in theory anyway.

It's just that the writing is on the wall in that these cameras will never be good enough, and photographers will buy into that, but what about the photo's end usage? Isn't that what really matters when making a determination on whether or not someone should buy that new piece of gear? But I doubt that that important factor is ever seriously considered. If it was, many fewer cameras would be sold, but in fact they're flying off the shelves.

I wouldn't start a thread to try to defend the fact that I have a D200. I can buy any camera I want, anytime I want. And that's certainly no big deal, just the truth. I know what you mean about photographers who sacrificed and scrimped and saved to buy their camera, and then they are resentful when a new model comes out and they try to prove that the new camera isn't any better than the old one. I'm not in that category, and neither is this thread. Just want to make that crystal clear.

Thanks for your reply.

Okay - point taken, but I don't agree with you that 'these cameras will never be good enough' - they've been good enough (better than film anyway) for several years now; it's just that, like most other things, they can always be better, which is quite a different thing.

But I don't think people are losing sight of the end product (the image) either - this forum is all about 'gear', and it's probably better able to afford it than most (seems that you can afford it too). But if you look at many of the great photos posted . . . . .

 

[Player]

Okay - point taken, but I don't agree with you that 'these cameras will never be good enough' - they've been good enough (better than film anyway) for several years now; it's just that, like most other things, they can always be better, which is quite a different thing.

But I don't think people are losing sight of the end product (the image) either - this forum is all about 'gear', and it's probably better able to afford it than most (seems that you can afford it too). But if you look at many of the great photos posted . . . . .

Jono, when I said that "these cameras will never be good enough," I meant that that's what the camera companies want us to think so they can continue to upgrade and sell. I said earlier in the thread that I believe that the cameras offered today are "better" than we need, but that's not going to stop new and improved models from coming out. And the fact that these new cameras will be developed and sold strikes me as greed and a certain degree of dishonesty, hence, "Is Nikon Greedy?" And why are the photographers enabling the camera companies? Their photography doesn't require it.

This forum, although there is a strong interest in the latest and greatest, is about, from what I've observed, photography first, and gear second. I wasn't directing any of my comments at anyone here, either actually, or in thought.

And I don't think anyone has a problem with me, and I'm happy about that.

Thanks!

 

[Player]

No worries Player, I understand what you mean. I certainly think there is a big difference between the pixel peepers and people who are very particular about their tools.

As for the ongoing change in equipment, I think it is a fundamental component of human nature. We are always looking for the next thing, trying to improve old things and be original. The desire for progress is just part of us -- as such, if a camera company can improve something, they will. Perhaps I am more inherently trusting in corporations, but I don't think they are really out to get us. CEO's are people too! I know that is not a popular stance these days, let alone from a raging liberal like myself! There are certainly a lot of crooks out there, but I think the camera business is a relative haven from this sort of thing. If you want to see dirty, try investment banking, hedge funds and subprime mortgage markets.

Yes, again Stuart, what I observed to be the exploitation of human nature.

Anyway, it is what it is. And there are, as you pointed-out, more important things to get worked-up about. Actually, what these camera companies are creating is breathtaking, and totally genius amazing.

Nice talking to you, and thanks for your great insights!

 

[sizifo]

Jono, when I said that "these cameras will never be good enough," I meant that that's what the camera companies want us to think so they can continue to upgrade and sell. I said earlier in the thread that I believe that the cameras offered today are "better" than we need, but that's not going to stop new and improved models from coming out. And the fact that these new cameras will be developed and sold strikes me as greed and a certain degree of dishonesty, hence, "Is Nikon Greedy?" And why are the photographers enabling the camera companies? Their photography doesn't require it.

I for one am having fun with this thread. To summarize the above paragraph: they've come up with something so good, they need not improve on it, and because they are, it makes them dishonest and greedy.

Surely you need to come up with a counter-proposal . I.e. what do you want to see Nikon do instead of developing new models?

Below is an example what happens when R&D stops at a very early stage: a Yugo pickup truck (shot with a small sensor Nikon).

 

[Player]

No sizifo, not exactly. I just wish that our human nature wasn't constantly exploited, and that photographers would stop siding with their "oppressors."

That photo may have been relevent referring to 1998, not now.