Nikon's mirrorless-a disaster in the making? (DIMINUTIVE!!!)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 23, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 23, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/22/2011 9:45 PM, RichA wrote:
    > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    >
    > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    >


    Another negative comment from the OP about something that doesn't even
    exist.
    Wattsamatta, bored on the unemployment line?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 23, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    : it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    : vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    : Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    : command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    :
    : http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106

    Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
    considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens. To shrink
    the lens, you have to shrink the sensor. And who's going to buy a tiny camera
    with a huge lens? Therefore the sensor in the mirrorless will be smaller,
    probably a lot smaller, whether you like it or not.

    But you knew that, surely. It can't have escaped your notice that FF lenses
    are, on average, larger than those for crop cameras. And that lenses for crop
    cameras are still pretty large. (Try hefting a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS if you
    don't believe that.) IOW, you're no dummy. Right? ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 23, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA wrote:
    > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    >
    > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    >


    IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
    mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
    has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
    aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
    would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
    heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
    reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
    again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
    introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
    major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
    E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
    camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
    current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.

    I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
    enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
    perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
    earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
    they should.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 23, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/23/2011 10:26 AM, Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

    >
    > I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
    > enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
    > perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
    > earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
    > they should.


    In the past Nikon has been fairly conservative in its product line.
    There is little indication that policy has changed. As for the rumor,
    discuss it to your hearts content. I prefer photo art and technique,
    using existing products.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 23, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    : RichA wrote:
    : > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    : > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    : > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    : > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    : > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    : >
    : > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    : >
    :
    : IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
    : mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
    : has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
    : aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
    : would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
    : heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
    : reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
    : again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
    : introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
    : major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
    : E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
    : camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
    : current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
    :
    : I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
    : enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
    : perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
    : earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
    : they should.

    The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
    for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
    probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
    is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
    where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 23, 2011
    #6
  7. Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    > : RichA wrote:
    > : > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    > : > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    > : > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    > : > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    > : > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    > : >
    > : > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    > : >
    > :
    > : IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
    > : mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
    > : has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
    > : aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
    > : would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
    > : heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
    > : reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
    > : again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
    > : introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
    > : major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
    > : E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
    > : camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
    > : current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
    > :
    > : I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
    > : enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
    > : perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
    > : earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
    > : they should.
    >
    > The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
    > for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
    > probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
    > is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
    > where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.
    >
    > Bob

    That may be true, and if so, given the fact that this market is likely
    small, Nikon won't get a significant ROI for this model, and will just
    have an entry in a market for no other purpose than to have an entry. I
    agree that Nikon didn't get where they are by making a lot of 'stupid'
    business decisions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the
    finished product that hits the market will be, if in fact, the rumors
    are true. the next question is, "What is Canon doing with respect to
    this market?"
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 23, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/23/2011 3:29 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >> Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    >> it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    >> vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    >> Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    >> command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    >>
    >> http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    >>

    >
    > Gasp!
    > How dare they consider a compact design for a compact system?
    >


    Your comment reminded me of the time a car salesman said:
    "If you want an economy car, your going to have to pay more for it."

    Yep! He wasn't joking.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 23, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:43 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    : Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    : > : RichA wrote:
    : > : > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    : > : > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    : > : > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    : > : > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    : > : > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    : > : >
    : > : > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    : > : >
    : > :
    : > : IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
    : > : mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
    : > : has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
    : > : aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
    : > : would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
    : > : heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
    : > : reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
    : > : again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
    : > : introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
    : > : major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
    : > : E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
    : > : camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
    : > : current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
    : > :
    : > : I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
    : > : enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
    : > : perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
    : > : earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
    : > : they should.
    : >
    : > The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
    : > for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
    : > probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
    : > is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
    : > where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.
    : >
    : > Bob
    : That may be true, and if so, given the fact that this market is likely
    : small, Nikon won't get a significant ROI for this model, and will just
    : have an entry in a market for no other purpose than to have an entry. I
    : agree that Nikon didn't get where they are by making a lot of 'stupid'
    : business decisions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the
    : finished product that hits the market will be, if in fact, the rumors
    : are true. the next question is, "What is Canon doing with respect to
    : this market?"

    Jockeying for position. If they think their offering is better than Nikon's,
    they may want Nikon to announce first. If not, or it they're afraid the market
    is small, they may try to go first and make a big splash before Nikon has a
    chance to grab market share.

    Obviously you're convinced that the market for this camera is small. Since I
    have no idea how big it is, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 23, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
    > considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens.


    actually it does, since you don't need a retrofocus design so that the
    mirror can clear the rear element.
     
    nospam, Jul 23, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:20:16 -0700, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <>, Robert Coe
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
    : > considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens.
    :
    : actually it does, since you don't need a retrofocus design so that the
    : mirror can clear the rear element.

    As I said, "almost".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 23, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > : > Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
    > : > considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens.
    > :
    > : actually it does, since you don't need a retrofocus design so that the
    > : mirror can clear the rear element.
    >
    > As I said, "almost".


    it's actually a lot more than 'almost no effect', especially for wide
    angle lenses as well as super-zoom lenses. for telephoto it won't make
    much of a difference.
     
    nospam, Jul 23, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 23/07/2011 1:45 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    >
    > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    >

    You seem to think that if this is real, then Nikon won't at some future
    time make mirrorless aps-c and 35mm format cameras.
    The smaller the format, the easier to make contrast detect AF equipped
    cameras with fast AF performance - deeper DOF, and smaller lens elements
    to move. That doesn't preclude them making larger format (and
    presumably f-mount reverse-compatible) mirrorless cameras when better
    contrast detect AF is possible, or with hybrid on-sensor phase detect AF.
    If Nikon rushed in with an APS-c or 35mm mirrorless camera with contrast
    detect AF, which didn't perform as well as - or any better than
    Panasonic, then that's not going to be very good for them. To make it
    work as well as Panasonic, the lens/camera AF system would need to be
    better than what Panasonic have done.
    Better (IMO) to wait - and do it right. Frustrating perhaps, but in the
    meantime the Nikon DSLRS have mlu/delay mode, CD AF (or MF) in lv mode
    when "mirror slapping" is a problem.
     
    Me, Jul 23, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:31:32 -0700, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <>, Robert Coe
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > : > Omitting the mirror allows you to shrink the size of the camera body
    : > : > considerably, but it has almost no effect on the size of the lens.
    : > :
    : > : actually it does, since you don't need a retrofocus design so that the
    : > : mirror can clear the rear element.
    : >
    : > As I said, "almost".
    :
    : it's actually a lot more than 'almost no effect', especially for wide
    : angle lenses as well as super-zoom lenses. for telephoto it won't make
    : much of a difference.

    Whatever you say, and I'm sure (seriously) that you know more about it than I
    do. One thing I'm not up for just now is a debate over the meaning of the word
    "almost".

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 24, 2011
    #14
  15. Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:43 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    > : Robert Coe wrote:
    > : > On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <> wrote:
    > : > : RichA wrote:
    > : > : > Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I thought
    > : > : > it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does Nikon have a
    > : > : > vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping camera designs?
    > : > : > Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the size couldn't possibly
    > : > : > command a $10k price tag? Except for Leica.
    > : > : >
    > : > : > http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    > : > : >
    > : > :
    > : > : IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting the
    > : > : mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call them. Olympus
    > : > : has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the mirrorless designs
    > : > : aren't the greatest invention since canned beer that they thought they
    > : > : would be. If the rumors are to be believed( one of which I recently
    > : > : heard in this NG as a response to a post I made ), Olympus has now
    > : > : reversed its decision to abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once
    > : > : again, produce more recent iterations to these lines( they already have
    > : > : introduced the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a
    > : > : major engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor( the
    > : > : E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a professional level
    > : > : camera which Olympus claims it is ), which will be necessary to enable
    > : > : current Olympus users to use their digital lenses in future cameras.
    > : > :
    > : > : I had always believed that there was a reason Nikon and Canon didn't
    > : > : enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or simply a
    > : > : perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't really expect to
    > : > : earn much, but just wants to have a presence because they are Nikon, and
    > : > : they should.
    > : >
    > : > The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of the market
    > : > for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon earns much from it
    > : > probably depends on how big that market segment is. I don't know how big it
    > : > is, and I don't know that Nikon knows. What I do know is that Nikon didn't get
    > : > where it is by making a lot of stupid business decisions.
    > : >
    > : > Bob
    > : That may be true, and if so, given the fact that this market is likely
    > : small, Nikon won't get a significant ROI for this model, and will just
    > : have an entry in a market for no other purpose than to have an entry. I
    > : agree that Nikon didn't get where they are by making a lot of 'stupid'
    > : business decisions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the
    > : finished product that hits the market will be, if in fact, the rumors
    > : are true. the next question is, "What is Canon doing with respect to
    > : this market?"
    >
    > Jockeying for position. If they think their offering is better than Nikon's,
    > they may want Nikon to announce first. If not, or it they're afraid the market
    > is small, they may try to go first and make a big splash before Nikon has a
    > chance to grab market share.
    >
    > Obviously you're convinced that the market for this camera is small. Since I
    > have no idea how big it is, I'd be interested in your reasoning.
    >
    > Bob


    Nikon and Canon currently have a combined market share in the DSLR
    market of approximately a bit under 80%. The market for
    other-than-DSLR's( meaning compacts, advanced compacts and
    point-and-shoot ) is split a bit more evenly between all manufacturers,
    with Nikon and Canon combined holding approximately 55% of that market,
    but that appears to be increasing.

    Olympus, one of the first manufacturers to seriously introduce EVF-IL
    cameras supposedly did market research and concluded that these new
    EVF-IL cameras would attract DSLR users as well as providing motivation
    to users of compacts and point-and-shoot cameras to 'step up' to these
    models, primarily because of the significant weight advantage, which
    made them not more bulky than a point and shoot camera, and even less
    bulky than a compact. Olympus did also load these cameras with current
    technology such as 1080p HD.

    What Olympus discovered, IMHO, was that DSLR users did not flock in
    droves to these models, and by discontinuing their DSLR models, as first
    announced, they actually lost market share in that market as well as in
    the point-and-shoot market, as users of point-and-shoot cameras did NOT
    elect to step up( and pay the price ). At that juncture, it looked as
    though Nikon and Canon made the shrewd business decision to NOT make the
    investment to enter this market. Given the current market status, and
    given the increased competitiveness in the POS market, Nikon's entry
    into that market will not significantly increase ROI, however, the
    presence and reputation may keep their competitors from increasing
    market share in this market, even if it doesn't turn out to be a
    significant money-maker for them. Nikon's late entry into the market,
    where manufacturers, such as Olympus are better established places it in
    a catch-up position in this market, but I conjecture that Nikon is
    betting that people will buy a Nikon on reputation alone, thus
    preventing their competition from expanding their market share in this
    market. Nikon may discover that because of the competitiveness in this
    market, and in consideration of their late entry, that reputation will
    not be sufficient, however, that remains to be seen.

    IMHO, I do not believe that these cameras are the wave of the future, as
    it is becoming apparent that they appear to appeal to a very limited
    market: Those who are users of DSLR's, or at least advanced compacts,
    and who know and understand how their equipment works and how to use it,
    and use it on a setting other than AUTO, but for whom weight is a
    serious consideration in certain circumstances. I think that's what
    Olympus discovered. Most people I have met who use the Olympus PEN
    cameras do NOT use them as their only camera, but carry it with other
    equipment and use it when carrying their heavier and bulkier DSLR is a
    disadvantage. But again, that's not scientific; it's just my
    observation while traveling when I happened to come into contact with
    such people, which is also, few and far between. And BTW, I asked all
    of them how they like the EVF. To a person, they all replied
    essentially with the comment that they hated it. Even those who had the
    new eyepiece viewfinder.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 24, 2011
    #15
  16. Neil Harrington wrote:
    > Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    >
    >>Robert Coe wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:07:43 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Robert Coe wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:26:42 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein
    >>>>><> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Please tell me that this isn't a 1/2.3 or 1/1.7" sensor!! I
    >>>>>>>thought it was going to be just a tad smaller than m4/3?? Does
    >>>>>>>Nikon have a vested interest in protecting the mirror-slapping
    >>>>>>>camera designs? Like how a camera equal to the D3x but 1/2 the
    >>>>>>>size couldn't possibly command a $10k price tag? Except for
    >>>>>>>Leica.
    >>>>>>>http://nikonrumors.com/2011/07/21/picture-of-nikons-mirrorless-camera-mount.aspx/#more-21106
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>IMHO, Nikon doesn't need to have a vested interest in protecting
    >>>>>>the mirror-slapping camera designs, as you so derisively call
    >>>>>>them. Olympus has found out, most likely, the hard way, that the
    >>>>>>mirrorless designs aren't the greatest invention since canned
    >>>>>>beer that they thought they would be. If the rumors are to be
    >>>>>>believed( one of which I recently heard in this NG as a response
    >>>>>>to a post I made ), Olympus has now reversed its decision to
    >>>>>>abandon its E-x and E-xx lines, and will once again, produce more
    >>>>>>recent iterations to these lines( they already have introduced
    >>>>>>the E-5 ). Although, as one poster stated, it will be a major
    >>>>>>engineering feat to increase the resolution in the 4/3 sensor(
    >>>>>>the E-5 only has 12.3 megapixels, IMHO, inadequate for a
    >>>>>>professional level camera which Olympus claims it is ), which
    >>>>>>will be necessary to enable current Olympus users to use their
    >>>>>>digital lenses in future cameras. I had always believed that there
    >>>>>>was a reason Nikon and Canon
    >>>>>>didn't enter this market. I wonder if this is simply a rumor or
    >>>>>>simply a perfunctory entry into a market where Nikon doesn't
    >>>>>>really expect to earn much, but just wants to have a presence
    >>>>>>because they are Nikon, and they should.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The camera appears to be aimed at the high end of that segment of
    >>>>>the market for whom size and weight are paramount. Whether Nikon
    >>>>>earns much from it probably depends on how big that market segment
    >>>>>is. I don't know how big it is, and I don't know that Nikon knows.
    >>>>>What I do know is that Nikon didn't get where it is by making a
    >>>>>lot of stupid business decisions. Bob
    >>>>
    >>>>That may be true, and if so, given the fact that this market is
    >>>>likely small, Nikon won't get a significant ROI for this model, and
    >>>>will just have an entry in a market for no other purpose than to
    >>>>have an entry. I agree that Nikon didn't get where they are by
    >>>>making a lot of 'stupid' business decisions. Regardless, it will
    >>>>be interesting to see what the finished product that hits the
    >>>>market will be, if in fact, the rumors are true. the next question
    >>>>is, "What is Canon doing with respect to this market?"
    >>>
    >>>Jockeying for position. If they think their offering is better than
    >>>Nikon's, they may want Nikon to announce first. If not, or it
    >>>they're afraid the market is small, they may try to go first and
    >>>make a big splash before Nikon has a chance to grab market share.
    >>>
    >>>Obviously you're convinced that the market for this camera is small.
    >>>Since I have no idea how big it is, I'd be interested in your
    >>>reasoning. Bob

    >>
    >>Nikon and Canon currently have a combined market share in the DSLR
    >>market of approximately a bit under 80%. The market for
    >>other-than-DSLR's( meaning compacts, advanced compacts and
    >>point-and-shoot ) is split a bit more evenly between all
    >>manufacturers, with Nikon and Canon combined holding approximately
    >>55% of that market, but that appears to be increasing.
    >>
    >>Olympus, one of the first manufacturers to seriously introduce EVF-IL
    >>cameras supposedly did market research and concluded that these new
    >>EVF-IL cameras would attract DSLR users as well as providing

    >
    >
    > What EVF-IL cameras? I must admit to not following Olympus at all closely,
    > but I wasn't aware they made such a camera. I'm assuming you mean something
    > other than the add-on EVFs for their Pen IL cameras.


    Olympus' PEN cameras are EVF-IL cameras. None of these cameras have
    mirror boxes; they all have electronic viewfinders, whether the optical
    viewfinder is an add-on( as with the EP-1 ) or standard( some subsequent
    iterations ). The ocular 'viewfinder' is really not a viewfinder, in
    the sense that one thinks of with a mirror box, but really just a way
    avoid some of the negative aspects of the full screen live view EVF.

    >>motivation to users of compacts and point-and-shoot cameras to 'step
    >>up' to these models, primarily because of the significant weight
    >>advantage, which made them not more bulky than a point and shoot
    >>camera, and even less bulky than a compact. Olympus did also load
    >>these cameras with current technology such as 1080p HD.
    >>
    >>What Olympus discovered, IMHO, was that DSLR users did not flock in
    >>droves to these models, and by discontinuing their DSLR models, as
    >>first announced, they actually lost market share in that market as
    >>well as in the point-and-shoot market, as users of point-and-shoot
    >>cameras did NOT elect to step up( and pay the price ). At that
    >>juncture, it looked as though Nikon and Canon made the shrewd
    >>business decision to NOT make the investment to enter this market. Given
    >>the current market status, and given the increased
    >>competitiveness in the POS market, Nikon's entry into that market

    >
    >
    > What's "POS"?


    My error; should have been P & S .

    >>will not significantly increase ROI, however, the presence and
    >>reputation may keep their competitors from increasing market share in
    >>this market, even if it doesn't turn out to be a significant
    >>money-maker for them. Nikon's late entry into the market, where
    >>manufacturers, such as Olympus are better established places it in a
    >>catch-up position in this market, but I conjecture that Nikon is
    >>betting that people will buy a Nikon on reputation alone, thus
    >>preventing their competition from expanding their market share in
    >>this market. Nikon may discover that because of the competitiveness
    >>in this market, and in consideration of their late entry, that
    >>reputation will not be sufficient, however, that remains to be seen.
    >>IMHO, I do not believe that these cameras are the wave of the future,

    >
    >
    > I don't think the viewfinderless ILCs are, certainly. I frankly don't see
    > the appeal to the Pen-type ILCs, Panasonic GF series, etc. The cameras are
    > really too large to be pocketable, except barely when fitted with a pancake
    > lens. It seems to me that is a serious drawback. I'm surprised that they are
    > as popular as they are.


    I don't disagree, but they re incredibly light and relatively compact.
    In fact, I put my 70-300 lens on an EP-1 and the lens weighed more than
    the camera.

    > An EVF-ILC like the Panasonic G series on the other hand makes a lot of
    > sense to me. While I'm still basically a Nikon guy (and will remain so), I
    > have Panasonic's G1 and G2 and I love 'em. It's that spectacular 1.4-megadot
    > EVF along with the cameras' several other impressive features that makes all
    > the difference.


    I'm not familiar with Panasonic's models.

    >>as it is becoming apparent that they appear to appeal to a very
    >>limited market: Those who are users of DSLR's, or at least advanced
    >>compacts, and who know and understand how their equipment works and
    >>how to use it, and use it on a setting other than AUTO, but for whom
    >>weight is a serious consideration in certain circumstances. I think
    >>that's what Olympus discovered. Most people I have met who use the
    >>Olympus PEN cameras do NOT use them as their only camera, but carry
    >>it with other equipment and use it when carrying their heavier and
    >>bulkier DSLR is a disadvantage. But again, that's not scientific;
    >>it's just my observation while traveling when I happened to come into
    >>contact with such people, which is also, few and far between. And
    >>BTW, I asked all of them how they like the EVF. To a person, they
    >>all replied essentially with the comment that they hated it. Even
    >>those who had the new eyepiece viewfinder.

    >
    >
    > Such is definitely the opinion of a friend of mine who has the G1 and GF1,
    > with the add-on EVF for the latter. He hates the EVF and feels buying the
    > camera was a mistake. He loves the G1, however.
    >
    > I know the Olympus add-on EVF is reportedly far better than Panasonic's, but
    > I still can't see that as the ideal solution. And it's quite expensive.


    I agree. And that's a lesson that apparently Olympus has found out the
    hard way.
     
    Alan Lichtenstein, Jul 25, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:
    > Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    > An EVF-ILC like the Panasonic G series on the other hand makes a

    lot of
    > sense to me. While I'm still basically a Nikon guy (and will remain

    so), I
    > have Panasonic's G1 and G2 and I love 'em. It's that spectacular

    1.4-megadot
    > EVF along with the cameras' several other impressive features that

    makes all
    > the difference.





    > Such is definitely the opinion of a friend of mine who has the G1

    and GF1,

    I have a. Wiireless remote EVF for my D300
    ... While it is not cheap, it works well.

    --
    Peter from my Droid
     
    Peter N, Jul 25, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 25, 9:36 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    > Peter N wrote:
    > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    > > wrote:
    > >> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    > >> An EVF-ILC like the Panasonic G series on the other hand makes a lot
    > >> of sense to me. While I'm still basically a Nikon guy (and will
    > >> remain so), I have Panasonic's G1 and G2 and I love 'em. It's that
    > >> spectacular 1.4-megadot EVF along with the cameras' several other
    > >> impressive features that makes all the difference.

    >
    > >> Such is definitely the opinion of a friend of mine who has the G1
    > >> and GF1,

    >
    > > I have a. Wiireless remote EVF for my D300
    > > .. While it is not cheap, it works well.

    >
    > Really? That sounds like a useful thing to have.


    Sounds cumbersome and completely contrary to the idea of mirrorless
    compact cameras.
     
    RichA, Jul 26, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:48:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 25, 9:36 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >> Peter N wrote:
    >> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    >> >> An EVF-ILC like the Panasonic G series on the other hand makes a lot
    >> >> of sense to me. While I'm still basically a Nikon guy (and will
    >> >> remain so), I have Panasonic's G1 and G2 and I love 'em. It's that
    >> >> spectacular 1.4-megadot EVF along with the cameras' several other
    >> >> impressive features that makes all the difference.

    >>
    >> >> Such is definitely the opinion of a friend of mine who has the G1
    >> >> and GF1,

    >>
    >> > I have a. Wiireless remote EVF for my D300
    >> > .. While it is not cheap, it works well.

    >>
    >> Really? That sounds like a useful thing to have.

    >
    >Sounds cumbersome and completely contrary to the idea of mirrorless
    >compact cameras.


    Sounds good for street photography. These days someone sitting at an
    outdoor cafe with a small camera on the table and a phone- or
    tablet-like device in hand blends into the background pretty well.
     
    John A., Jul 26, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Peter N Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:48:27 -0400, John A. <>
    wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:48:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA

    <>
    > wrote:



    > >On Jul 25, 9:36pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    > >> Peter N wrote:
    > >> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:18:49 -0400, "Neil Harrington"

    <>
    > >> > wrote:
    > >> >> Alan Lichtenstein wrote:
    > >> >> An EVF-ILC like the Panasonic G series on the other hand

    makes a lot
    > >> >> of sense to me. While I'm still basically a Nikon guy (and

    will
    > >> >> remain so), I have Panasonic's G1 and G2 and I love 'em. It's

    that
    > >> >> spectacular 1.4-megadot EVF along with the cameras' several

    other
    > >> >> impressive features that makes all the difference.
    > >>
    > >> >> Such is definitely the opinion of a friend of mine who has

    the G1
    > >> >> and GF1,
    > >>
    > >> > I have a. Wiireless remote EVF for my D300
    > >> > .. While it is not cheap, it works well.
    > >>
    > >> Really? That sounds like a useful thing to have.

    > >
    > >Sounds cumbersome and completely contrary to the idea of mirrorless
    > >compact cameras.



    > Sounds good for street photography. These days someone sitting at an
    > outdoor cafe with a small camera on the table and a phone- or
    > tablet-like device in hand blends into the background pretty well.


    It's great for low angle and birds. But it eats batteries if I am not
    careful.

    --
    Peter from my Droid
     
    Peter N, Jul 26, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rich

    Re: Nikon to go mirrorless

    Rich, Jul 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    299
    Bruce
    Jul 20, 2010
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    351
    Peter
    Sep 8, 2010
  3. Bruce
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    986
    John Turco
    Nov 28, 2010
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    818
    Bruce
    Sep 4, 2011
  5. RichA

    Canon, Nikon mirrorless = Disney and FOX on DVD

    RichA, Sep 6, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    500
    Bruce
    Sep 15, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page