Nikon To Stop Making SLR Cameras and Focus on Mirrorless Models (nikkei.com) 111
Japanese camera maker Nikon will withdraw from the single-lens reflex camera business and shift toward digital offerings amid intensifying competition from smartphone cameras, Nikkei reported Tuesday. From the report: Nikon's SLR cameras have been widely used by professional photographers for more than 60 years and have come to be seen as synonymous with the Japanese company. It now plans to focus resources on mirrorless cameras, which have become mainstream products on the back of more advanced digital technologies.
Nikon's cameras have been losing out to smartphones, which increasingly feature powerful cameras. Nikon aims to beat them by offering products with more unique features. Since June 2020, when Nikon launched its flagship D6 SLR, no new SLR models have been released. The company has already stopped development of compact digital cameras. From now on, Nikon intends to focus on digital mirrorless cameras, but production and distribution of existing SLR models will continue.
Nikon's cameras have been losing out to smartphones, which increasingly feature powerful cameras. Nikon aims to beat them by offering products with more unique features. Since June 2020, when Nikon launched its flagship D6 SLR, no new SLR models have been released. The company has already stopped development of compact digital cameras. From now on, Nikon intends to focus on digital mirrorless cameras, but production and distribution of existing SLR models will continue.
Normal (Score:2)
Actually, there no avantage for the reflex camera.
Sony already make the move to stop SLR camera, Canon will follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Normal (Score:4, Interesting)
To replace that for me, I bought a Hasselblad 501 CM medium format camera.
If you want to hear mirror slapping, etc....this thing sounds like heaven.
I'm a HUGE proponent of mirrorless now myself...one of my favorite things I've found to do, is adapt older vintage full manual lenses to my mirrorless cameras.
Talk about a whole new avenue for artistic expression!!!
And the focus assistance on the new mirrorless cameras make this feasible even for half blind folks like myself.
Unfortunately, people are starting to catch on to this...and prices on some vintage glass is starting to rise a bit, but it isn't too bad yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing quite beats the smell of preparing silver halide emulsions for plate photography. Those were the good old days.
Re: (Score:2)
Silver halides don't smell. There's a slight odour from the gum arabic used as a carrier.
Yes, I've made my own photographic paper.
well ackshully (Score:2)
silver halide emulsions
You misread what I said. It's OK. Just try harder before you jump in with snark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy that same activity!!
Although mine is a bit unusual...I'm shooting a Shen Hao dedicated 6x17 medium format film view camera.
Beautiful panoramic images....4 shots to a roll.
It's something you just can't do in one shot on digital, and I'd venture to guess
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh, but the sound of the mirror moving up, locking in place, the curtains opening and closing, and the mirror slamming back down is music to my ears.
In that case you'll like Ryuichi Sakamoto's Ballet Mecanique [youtube.com] from his Futurista album. The percussion soundtrack is composed from mirrors slamming back down (and the sound of the automatic winding motor whirring).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. A DSLR can remain "on" in a very minimal power-draw state for hours and hours while still allowing the photographer to look through the viewfinder to consider shots. If using manual focus, the photographer can even compose potential shots without drawing additional power, or only the power needed for any functions left automatic, such as light metering for features like choosing aperture, shutter speed, or ISO.
I typically shoot in M-mode, with aperture and shutter speed manually set, with auto-ISO (s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Metering has been trivial for SLRs since it can happen through a relatively low-power sensor in the reflex viewfinder.
Metering hasn't been trivial or low power since the world progressed beyond center weighted metering in the 80s. These days metering is done with a relatively high resolution sensor also responsible for autofocus, in conjunction with autofocus as well as feedback from the focal distance of the lens and calculation of relative focus of subjects. It's a complex battery hog which is precisely why it auto disables itself in as little as 10 seconds after you take your finger off the button.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. A DSLR can remain "on" in a very minimal power-draw state for hours and hours while still allowing the photographer to look through the viewfinder to consider shots.
I regularly leave my DSLR on by accident for weeks at a time. However much of what happens in a view finder requires the camera to be awake from sleep, not the least of which is focus.
I can get hundreds upon hundreds of photos from a single charge of the battery this way and the camera coming off of a hot-standby does not cause me to miss a shot.
Yep. I get a cool 400-600 from a battery on my Nikon DSLR. It's a shame that this is crap compared to the 700-800 you get on Nikon's flagship mirrorless.
But honestly it's a hollow and worthless complaint. Mirrorless cameras aren't some battery hogs. Their entry level cameras have the same battery life as entry level DSLRs, and
Re: (Score:2)
Depends to an extent on what kind of things you shoot. I mainly take wildlife photos, and sometimes it's a case of picking a subject, watching through the viewfinder until it moves into an aesthetically pleasing position, shoot, and repeat with the same or a different individual. Sports photography is quite similar, AIUI.
batterylife is in hours and spares are cheap (Score:2)
Power savings, in some situations? SLRs have a zero-power viewfinder.
Not unreasonable point, but you can carry spare batteries on you and change them in 1-2 seconds. A modern mirrorless can go hours on a single good battery. If you're outpacing a fully charged battery....you've got a mountain of high capacity SD cards and a lot more on your mind! :) Also, if you're shooting every day, the modern mirrorless cameras have USB-C charging, which was a game changer for me. I just leave it plugged into my laptop after downloading the photos and have a full battery every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY advantage to SLR is to see a clearer preview of focus. Even a 4K screen is not going to be as good as glass at telling you if the specific part of the image you want in focus is in perfect focus.
Re: (Score:2)
i tend to agree granted i havnt seen the latest (most expensive) tech yet
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a nice and clear preview on a good EV, but you need a good camera.
The avantage, of EV, is the zoom function and the focus indicator, that is impossible on a TTL viewfinder.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried a recent MILC? My Canon R5 and R6 have extremely high resolution viewfinders and no blackout while shooting.
Re:Normal (Score:5, Informative)
A video viewfinder is both better and worse than a SLR viewfinder. In that regard the SLR will always have advantages in some situations, and disadvantages in others.
Sony was never known for their SLR cameras, so it's unsurprising they decided to focus on mirrorless. Sony also makes displays, so that makes it even less surprising.
If Nikon abdicates the market, then there's less competition, so it remains more viable for Canon. They may well exit the market themselves, but this might actually mean they stay in it longer.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.cnet.com/tech/comp... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Except Canon is not making any new DSLR's either. They announced that late last year.
Except your headline says "flagship", they're not going to stop making new DSLRs. They're going to stop leading with DSLRs. That does mean some level of withdrawal from the market, but like I said, this may extend the period of that withdrawal.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been heavily EOL'ing their EF and EF-S lenses. Is there much left that they still actively sell and support?
Re: Normal (Score:2)
That's not what the article says. They will stop making flagship ones, no more 1D.
Re:Normal (Score:5, Interesting)
Sony got into the DSLR market by acquiring the old Minolta business. Minolta were known for their SLR cameras. The Sony DSLRs had a fairly strong following from former Minolta users for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
so it remains more viable for Canon
They will own the buggy whip market while those fools move on to their "motorcars". Jokes aside Canon have already announced they will not be making any new flagship DSLRs. In a way they partially excited this space before Nikon did. Though this was just a formality for people who have been following Nikon, who have discontinued many current and flagship F-mount lenses in the past year. It was only a matter of time until this announcement.
Canon's not much better right now. The DSLR is effective dead.
Eyepiece vs. Preview Window (Score:2)
A video viewfinder is both better and worse than a SLR viewfinder. In that regard the SLR will always have advantages in some situations, and disadvantages in others.
Now, I'm not sure what exactly you mean.
I think we need separate terms for the viewfinder that you peer through by placing it close to your eye and the larger display that you can view from a few feet away, also called viewfinder by some users and writers. I'd probably just call the first an eyepiece (a term I believe reserved for x-scopes) and the second the live-preview window (following desktop or smartphone usage).
Now if that's what you mean, I remember buying a bridge camera with an eyepiece viewfinder
Re: (Score:2)
A video viewfinder is both better and worse than a SLR viewfinder.
I strongly disagree here. The Video viewfinder shows you what the picture will look like. And SLR viewfinder does not.
SLR were created for this very reason. Back in the day you had to have TWO lenses, one for the viewfinder one for the picture. SLR came in so that your viewfinder went through the same lens your picture would be shot through. As a result, you got a much closer preview, hence the better viewfinder.
Now we can go one step forward once again. Instead of viewing "something", you can now view the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a pro or anything, but isn't there some value to seeing the shot with your eyeball through the actualy physical optics of the camera?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If you're into playing with selective focus, depth of field, etc.
Yes, of course you can do that with digital cameras. I think the decisions and actions to achieve the effect are simpler with a manual lens..
Re: (Score:2)
The value is when the film or film-like media can't show you what it sees before you take the picture. A mirrorless camera imager can constantly show you what it sees, more accurately (in terms of framing and focus, even if only slightly better) than a viewfinder which uses the mirror to switch a different optical path to your eye. And I never liked viewfinders because I wear prescription glasses for myopia.
The other big reason to use SLRs was changeable lenses, but that does't need a mirror.
Nikon slowly shrinking (Score:2)
For a while there was a big battle between Canon and Nikon between professional photographers...
But even several years ago, you could tell Nikon was losing this battle.
Nikon had some great stuff, but for whatever reason Canon was just more popular, and that popularity continued to grow... I think maybe in large part because they did a much better job addressing the vlogging/video market early, so they stayed much more relevant to many people.
So while Nikon is not done yet, I think this will cause a new outf
Re: (Score:2)
Today, the battle are between two 5000 pounds gorillas : Canon and Sony. Both have a huge company behind to leverage the development, but even if I prefer Sony, Canon have a better history of colaboration between their divisions, unlike Sony that look to work in silo. But again,, Sony make the lens, camera, sensor and electronics, where Canon only make lens and camera.
That will be a nice battle to follow.
Re: (Score:1)
Canon makes their own sensors. https://www.canonwatch.com/can... [canonwatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Today, the battle are between two 5000 pounds gorillas : Canon and Sony. Both have a huge company behind to leverage the development, but even if I prefer Sony, Canon have a better history of colaboration between their divisions, unlike Sony that look to work in silo. But again,, Sony make the lens, camera, sensor and electronics, where Canon only make lens and camera.
Canon makes their sensors and electronics, too. Well, they probably contract out the PCB manufacturing, but I'm sure Sony does, too. Maybe you're thinking of Nikon, who uses a lot of Sony sensors.
Canon also tends to be a bit less awful to work with when things go wrong. You can usually buy repair parts for less than extortionate markup, for example, whereas my experience with Sony involved them wanting... I think $125 for a simple power switch assembly, and me deciding to write off an entire camcorder be
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nikon slowly shrinking (Score:4, Interesting)
My take is that where Nikon failed was that they lagged on video features as people began to expect that their DSLR would do that job too, and indeed the market for cameras with interchangeable lenses went that direction. More and more people want to shoot video at least part of the time, and while Nikon is good at that now by all accounts, by most accounts Canon has been successful at it for longer (and is still better in most ways.) Before the proliferation of quality mirrorless cameras, some people were buying DSLRs only and specifically for video, because it was the cheapest way to get a high quality sensor and lens.
The early DSLRs didn't shoot video at all, so that only became a factor relatively late in the period of SLR dominance (which I now take to be over, as mirrorless cameras are outselling SLR by a wide margin, and have been for years.)
Canon makes nicer gear than Nikon like Apple vs HP (Score:2)
Nikon had some great stuff, but for whatever reason Canon was just more popular, and that popularity continued to grow... I think maybe in large part because they did a much better job addressing the vlogging/video market early, so they stayed much more relevant to many people.
This is a chevy vs ford, coke vs pepsi thing, but Canons are nicer cameras. Nikons are ugly, more expensive, and have no advantage over Canon to pretty much anyone. Nikon has long coasted on being the superior brand apparently 40 years go now when Canon was a more amateurish upstart and they were the king. Photographers have a long memory for some reason. Every Nikon shooter I know says they bought Nikon because their dad bought it or something like that.
If you go to Best Buy today and look at Canon
There is one way... (Score:2)
In fact, I am a pretty hardcore camera nerd. If you show me 2 photos, there's no way I could tell the Canon vs the Nikon image.
Well, the Nikon one would probably be in focus.... :-)
That's the main thing that I think kept Nikon going for so long, they had a really great AF system that was very reliable. But Canon got good enough, and supported video really well, to the point where that did not matter. In all honesty I do not know if at this point Nikon still has any AF advantage, probably that was one eve
Re: (Score:2)
I think your information may be somewhat out of date.
Nikon is currently in third or fourth place for stills autofocus performance. Panasonic is the laggard on that particular field these days, with Canon probably first as of the 2020 camera models. and Sony arguably the second place finisher. Nikon might've been the hot stuff in the non-digital SLR days, but at this point, it's buying sensors from Sony and re-inventing the AF wheel with its own firmware and electronics.
As far as color accuracy goes, Canon i
Re: (Score:2)
In the pre-digital days, Nikon had demonstrably better lenses. As others have said, Nikon coasted on this reputation and neglected development overall, although they did produce a digital back for their analogue cameras for a while - remove the film back, attach the digital back, and off you go. Less than 1MP, but a relatively cheap introduction to digital.
Re: Nikon slowly shrinking (Score:3)
As I have said before, for people who just want a snap, parents, teens, casual tourists, phones are wonderful. They lead to the expected image and quality. But it is still a tiny lens and sensor and r
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Nikon and Canon. I canâ(TM)t speak to image quality, as I do a lot of post, but I prefer Nikon. Canon has design flaws, like one can insert the memory card and damage the camera.
That's CompactFlash for you. The industry should have dumped it completely in favor of SD long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Er, the industry did. I haven't seen an MILC camera with an old fashioned CF slot. Ever. If you buy a new camera, you'll probably get some combination of SD and CFexpress.
CFexpress is its own special mess, since there are type A, B and C varieties that functionally map to the number of supported PCIe lanes for data transfer and are physically different from each other, but if you're buying a camera that has those slots, you know full well what you're getting in to in that regard.
At issue is the sheer amount
Re: (Score:2)
I think a big part of this is that Canon made better low-end cameras and P&S models.
Once you get into the "real camera" territory, they're both very good and its likely more a matter of personal preference than anything else.
But a lot of people buying those better cameras likely started on the low-end models, so they kept their brand loyalty when moving up the product line.
Re: (Score:2)
But even several years ago, you could tell Nikon was losing this battle.
Losing what battle? Canon announced they were giving up on high end DSLRs last year already. Nikon is *late* pulling out of the market. That said Canon have said they are continuing to make toy DSLRs for low end consumers for now. However the days for those are numbered too.
No one is jumping ship to Canon over this. It makes no sense to buy a DSLR now, and Canon's (and Nikon's) DSLRs are just bottom tier shit compared to their own mirrorless cameras. The best cameras currently available on the market from b
Re: (Score:2)
Contemporary Nikon cameras have Sony sensors and have a distinct disadvantage in terms of autofocus accuracy compared to either Sony or Canon. Canon EF lenses are cheap, but that can't be said for the RF to Z mount comparison, where Canon is lacking in beginner and mid-range glass but has a relatively complete set of pro lenses that are available right now.
Sony loses, IMO, for having shitty firmware. The UI is inconsistent and a lot of features are absolutely buried in sub-menus. Sometimes you can touch som
Re: (Score:1)
Contemporary Nikon cameras have Sony sensors and have a distinct disadvantage in terms of autofocus accuracy compared to either Sony or Canon.
Strange as I used to think Nikon had superior AF systems.
But I could see it for modern cameras as Canon had to work out focusing issues for video which probably also improves still focus (since a still is just a momentary capture of a video feed now anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Canon MILCs released since 2020 have had subject-sensitive AF that works extremely well. You can set your camera to look for human eyes, "anything with an eye" animal AF, or for vehicles. And it absolutely works. If it loses the eye, it'll track the head of the same subject. If it loses the head, it'll track the body. It even anticipates where they eyes will be if the subject is turning.
Sony definitely has the subject AF down, although to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't track vehicles.
Nikon has somethi
Re: (Score:2)
Sony loses, IMO, for having shitty firmware. The UI is inconsistent and a lot of features are absolutely buried in sub-menus. Sometimes you can touch something on the screen and sometimes you can't. Not a big deal if you're completely used to it, but it's weird coming from basically any other mirrorless camera.
You think that's bad, try using a Panasonic camcorder sometime. Your head will explode.
I really don't understand why nobody has proposed building an operating system for still camera, video cameras, and movie cameras based on Android with a sane user interface, and marketing it to all these camera makers to make their products not suck. Because literally every camera I've used has had a bad user interface, whether it's a camera or camcorder Sony, Canon, or Panasonic, or an IP camera from NewTek, Marshall,
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a couple of Sony HDV video cameras from the 4mm tape era. Both cameras have a "favourites" function where you can promote features to the first page of the menu. Only room for four, but still handy.
Re: (Score:2)
A bad user interface has nothing to do with the operating system. Is Android low enough power for a camera? I've got a six year old battery in my Canon 80D and I'll still take hundreds of photos and videos without even thinking about recharging.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and Android user interfaces are abysmal too :)
The single most important part of a camera (Score:4, Insightful)
is the 12 inches behind it. A quote from Ansel Adams.
I have a Nikon D3x, it does everything I could possibly ask from it, and more. I get the competition from smartphones etc, but giving up SLR production seems shortsighted to me.
Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the competition from smartphones etc, but giving up SLR production seems shortsighted to me.
Especially because I can't be the only person out there with an interest in "professional" photography but zero interest in smart phones. Especially for nature photography, part of the joy is leaving the smart phone at home.
I suppose if SLRs are replaced by high end dedicated digital cameras that can produce the same quality, have the same manual configuration options, can support good interchangeable lenses etc. then it's not really the SLR technology itself that is important. It's the camera as a dedicate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting a moving mirror in a digital camera is silly.
Until you have to frame and/or focus on a subject under low light conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern sensors these days are rather... good at those things. It's rather stunning when you think that your phone can take a usable photo even though you can't really see much - the modern sensor has the ability to sense beyond what humans can see.
Low light performance is superb on the modern sensor - you can crank the gain up to ridiculous values without noise setting in, making framing and focusing in low light much easier.
Plus,
Re: (Score:2)
your phone can take a usable photo even though you can't really see much
That would explain a lot of the poorly framed, shaky phone pics and videos. Actually, no it won't. Because many of these are taken in broad daylight. It must be some failing in people's ability to hold a phone up and make the picture on the screen look acceptable. So why will mirrorless cameras be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
Giving up SLR is not giving up professional cameras though, the industry has been moving to mirrorless and it sure seems like Nikon has gotten the message from it's pro customers that the advantages of mirrorless have finally outpaced having a mechanical reflex. I'll bet they have seen sales of Z9 frames outpacing D6 frames and that's only going to continue.
Once Sony started making inroads on Canon and Nikon with their mirrorless models seems like it was only a matter of time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's exactly what's happening. The new "mirrorless"- better described as electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens- cameras provide the same high-end features as SLRs: through the lens viewing, a whole library of interchangeable lenses, very fast an
Re:The single most important part of a camera (Score:5, Informative)
I have a D70s that I use less-and-less. When the D6s become cheap, I'll buy one used for a song but I'm not in a hurry. The iPhone camera is not good from an optics perspective but it also isn't terrible. And the software reacts faster than I can. In a low light situation, I can get a picture of my kid with the iPhone faster than I can make an aperture adjustment on a real camera.
In order to do that, the exposure time is measured in seconds which seems absurd, but the phone is light enough that I can actually hold it still enough for that long and the software seems to be able to compensate for small motion.
You cant get things like large-aperture background blur. It's a waste of time to photograph anything more than about 10meters away. The moon at night? Forget it. Sports or other action photos? Not a chance.
For those who want pictures as keepsakes, though, the phone camera might actually be a better choice and you always have it with you.
Re: (Score:3)
There is far more about a camera than its sensor. Both Canon and Nikon are effectively out of the market now, and both companies have produced mirrorless cameras that well and truly outclass their flagship DSLRs. There's a world of things you can do with better image processing and as Nikon DSLR user I'm actually quite jealous of the wife's Olympus. She can literally take images that are not possible for me to take thanks to how the sensor is read out and the processing applied to it. Likewise with my phone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah to be honest I'm a bit sad the DSLR is going away. I have an incredible investment in Nikon lenses and bodies. Adapters don't allow you get the full benefits of a new format.
But as I said, I was jealous of the Olympus. I was actually considering jumping on board with a Z1 when they were first announced but talked myself out of it because I thought Nikon wasn't serious about mirrorless at the time.
Looks like I've got a platform migration coming. Yay new toys :), not yay more money to part with.
Re: (Score:2)
The phones aren't supposed to replace the DSLR. The mirrorless cameras are. And they are superior to DSLR in many aspect and inferior in none. Heck, they use the same sensors !
Re: (Score:2)
Surely 8 inches is acceptable as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
8 inches is darned near excessive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pentax is still making SLRs. They have decent market share in Japan, somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I had (and still have) Canon 5D Mk II. It has served me well for 10+ years.
I bought a canon R6 just a month ago - there was a campaign for it that gave the EF -> RF converter and 250 EUR of cashback afterwards, so I made the jump.
Have to say...the upgrade was well worth it. Just the basic sensor stats are something (ISO 102500 is ridiculous), but I've noticed that all the "AI" functionalities on focusing and *maintaining focus* that really were not possible before are really good.
I like to shoot lots of
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants DSLR anymore, because mirrorless is far superior in every aspect, save battery life. But since the camera is so much smaller, you can add a bigger battery and be done with this last drawback.
What about lenses. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The more new mount stuff that becomes available, the more legacy lenses are easily available secondhand. Most of the lenses I have for my Canon R5 and R6 are EF-L or Sigma Art lenses that I got for maybe half what they'd cost new. I have one eye-watering expensive RF lens (the 28-70/2) and the rest of my kit has come from KEH or Ebay.
There are many thousands of every F mount lens, and as the pros switch to new gear, they'll turn in whole collections of stuff to pick up the workhorse lenses for those new bod
Re: (Score:2)
meh Sigma has been a better lense for my nikon already.
Re: (Score:3)
All new cameras will be Z mount. There is however an F-Z adapter. And if there weren't, adapting lenses is not difficult and loads of after market adapters exist for basically any combination (though certain combinations require additional optics).
One thing to note, Nikon discontinued most of their higher end F-mount lenses a few months ago. The F mount is dead.
"It now plans to focus..." (Score:5, Funny)
Just as long as (Score:2)
Same with film, as long as that $1000 lens works on the new bodies, it's all good.
Also, your old SLR still takes awesome shots, just like before.
Re: (Score:2)
Not perfect but they do make a 1st party adapter to fit F mount lenses on their pro mirrorless Z bodies with the newer FTZ mount. [nikonusa.com]
I love my D750, but it's the lenses that matter (Score:2)
I love my D750 - was considering an 850 at some point - I am glad to know they're not going to stop producing their current models, just not making new -
I might consider moving to mirrorless so long as the FTZ adapter lets me keep my substantial investment in lenses... cuz well, that's where all the money went...
Nikon ended third party repairs in 2020 (Score:5, Informative)
In March 2020 Nikon stopped supplying the network of authorized repair facilities with parts. Nikon corporate is now the only option, often at much greater cost and time.
In contrast, Canon is very good about supplying parts to both repair shops and even to individuals.
Though I still own some Nikon classics - F, F2, FM - this action has left Nikon dead to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee you Nikon have not supplied parts for the F, F2 or FM for a very long time. But honestly *this* action did it? Nikon have always been hostile. Heck they encrypted the white balance information in the NEF format to prevent 3rd party software from opening them back when they first entered the digital market in earnest. If you cared about your rights then Nikon should have been dead to you 20 years ago.
Synonymous? (Score:1)
Nikon's SLR cameras have been widely used by professional photographers for more than 60 years and have come to be seen as synonymous with the Japanese company.
They're not the inventor, first to market, or predominant SLR maker. Does anyone refer to SLRs generically as "Nikons"? I think Exakta, Rectaflex, Zeiss, Praktica, Pentax, Miranda, Yashica, Zunow, Periflex, Minolta, Canon, Olympus, Topcon, Fujifilm, Sony, & Panasonic, might want a word with the journalist.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what they were trying to say is that "Nikon" came to be shorthand for "Nikon SLR", not the other say around. Nobody's brand name is shorthand for "camera". Similarly, when one hears "Polaroid", there is a specific kind of camera that comes to mind (after the specific kind of film, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article didn't claim "camera", it claimed "SLR." The article is about SLRs in particular.
wat
"Nikon's SLR cameras have been widely used by professional photographers for more than 60 years and have come to be seen as synonymous with the Japanese company."
It didn't claim "SLR", it claimed "Nikon's SLR cameras"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think the meanings of words matter then there's no point in trying to talk to you, because you'll use them to mean anything you want and no meaningful communication is possible.
Better keep big sensors and big glass, though (Score:2)
I have a few friends that have already learned the hard way, in some low-light shot situations, that smartphone, that point and shoot, and most of the AIO mirrorless cameras they own can't (or barely) capture what they're after, just due to physics alone.
I never imagined it'd be difficult to photograph freshly-painted radium watch hands, given all the fluorescent and radioactive stuff I photograph. But then again, I have a good-sized sensor and large lenses.