Giving your brain three weeks rest leads to interesting thoughts...
Well, as I hoped, Nikon seems to be saving up its big announcement for the Osaka Games (starts August 26th; the formal announcement is apparently scheduled for the afternoon of the 23rd in Japan). Thus, the three weeks while I was in Africa didn't see any new Nikon products announced (though Nikon did announce their 40 millionth lens sale).
Wait a second, what big announcement, you ask?
Yes, I've been coy about this since late last year when I first learned some of the attributes of what Nikon I believe was calling prototype Q89. Nikon, too, has been coy. Every Nikon person "in the know" has had a silly grin on their face every time they say "it'll be worth the wait." And it will, I think, though it might not be quite the announcement you've been expecting (I'll have to go on faith on the image quality aspects--Nikon executives seem to think that their new flagship camera will give Canon a run for its money in virtually every aspect). I'm going to remain coy for another week, after which, if I'm correct, Nikon will have announced the camera(s) (though not shipping them; I believe key NPS and some CPS members will be able to try one during the games, which is why the announce date has to just precede the start of the event). From the leaked specs, some Nikon pros should be happy, while others will scratching their heads. And for dessert, there supposedly will be about a half-dozen lenses, with the remaining exotics getting their VR and two new zooms at the other end. If that weren't enough, we're about due for some new Coolpix models, too (especially if we're to believe the revised digital camera sales estimates for the next nine months that Nikon released in late July), though I doubt if they'll be announced simultaneously.
But I start this commentary with the as-yet-announced digital flagship for a reason. Nikon has taken a lot of abuse from the online community since the Canon 1D first appeared. The gist of the comments tend to go like this: after the D1 Nikon dropped the ball and let Canon take over the pro market.
That's not exactly like I (or Nikon) see it. While indeed you can find a plethora of white lenses lining any sporting event (I can hardly wait to see them wearing the Nikon sponsor bib at the Osaka Games ;~), a large contingent of advanced amateurs with 5Ds in their hand, and another gaggle of Canon groupies who shoot only at ISO 1600 and above, Nikon hasn't exactly stopped selling serious bodies to serious amateurs and pros. Of the six bodies (in eight years) that qualify (D1, D1h, D1x, D2h, D2x, and D200), only the D2h really didn't sell in the quantity Nikon hoped for. Some--the D200 being the leading example--sold in higher quantities than hoped for. Pay attention to those last two sentences, as they are key to understanding what Nikon is about to introduce.
Indeed, I brought two D200s with me to Africa. I did this mainly because of weight (ever tried carrying two D2x's up a 19,340 foot mountain?). They did an admirable job and survived being banged around in a light pack and bouncing around in Land Cruisers on things that shouldn't be called roads. Of course, one of the bodies had just been into NikonUSA for a clean and adjust and now looks like it could use another serious cleaning, but that's Africa for you. Dust, rain, dust, rain, then a lot more dust. The mud and dust get into everything eventually, no matter how hard you try to avoid it. But pro bodies just take the beating and keep on shooting, which is what my D200's did without hesitation.
Overall, Nikon's DSLR camera sales seem to be going about how they planned them. There are more D2x bodies out there than 1Ds bodies, for instance. There are more D200 bodies out there than 5D bodies. True, there are more 1D bodies in the hands of serious photographers than D2h bodies, but, as I said, that's the only real fly in the pro ointment.
The same thing is true on the consumer DSLR side. Nikon now appears to be selling more consumer DSLRs than Canon. That's certainly been true in Japan in the first half of 2007, where the D40/D40x/D80 trio has reversed the Canon and Nikon market shares and forced Canon to start using rebates to move low end models.
So why is it so popular to diss (criticize) Nikon DSLRs on the Internet?
The usual thing that's pointed to is high ISO performance. At the pro end, there's certainly a difference between the two brands. But I sometimes wonder about whether it's a significant difference. The usual thing that people say is that high ISO "allows them to get the shot." Right. Anyone who shot film knows that's not quite true. More often than not, those are really code words for "shoot and post process more lazily." Or perhaps to be more fair: "get slightly more keepers in photographically risky situations." Take a close look at this photo, for example:
Since it was taken with a 10mp Ricoh GX-100 at the base ISO (from a moving vehicle), it has a lot more noise in it than my D200 did at much higher ISOs. Yet it cleaned up very nicely, and I'd be willing to print it at the max size on my Epson 2200 (13x19").
It doesn't help that we've all turned into pixel peepers in the digital age. With my 30" monitor I'm generally looking at 50% view most of the time, and getting to 100% is only a step away. However, if I'm printing at 300 dpi, looking at pixels can be quite misleading--personally I find my printed work much more impacted by aliasing and resolution limits than by noise, even when I dial in high ISOs on my "noisy Nikons" (or my really noisy compacts). I'd rather have more pixels, actually. Indeed, the difference between the D100 and D200 is a perfect example: yes, the D200 is marginally more noisy when measured on a pixel-by-pixel basis at ISO 800 or 1600, but when you put 10mp on an 8x10" print versus 6mp, you're making the pixel-by-pixel changes harder to see due to their smaller size. So, yes, I'd rather have the D200 rather the D100, the D2x rather than the D1x, and so on.
Sure, if I were a wedding photographer I'd be a little more worried about noise, since I'd be shooting JPEGs for the most part. But frankly, JPEG noise on the latest Nikon DSLRs is pretty well controlled out to ISO 1600 (ISO 800 on the D2x series), and I'd be much more worried about loss of dynamic range at high ISO than noise. In this, the latest Nikons actually do better than the Canons. The D40x and XTi at ISO 1600 shows this pretty nicely: the Nikon retains color saturation and the contrast slope in a way the Canon doesn't. Noisewise, they're very similar, though the XTi seems to have a bit less dark shadow noise (probably due to the reduction in dynamic range). And if the Nikons weren't good enough in the noise and dynamic range for my wedding JPEGs, I could always just use my Fujifilm S5 Pro, which deals with both things rather emphatically.
Curiously, what we're about to get appears to be what photographers (other than me) asked for: ISO improvements. By taking the pro body to a full frame, improving the sensor technology, and not pushing the pixels too far upwards, high ISO noise should be relatively well controlled. Indeed, if rumors are correct, Nikon will be allowing you to go to ISOs you didn't know existed (couple that with some of the classic fast Nikkors and, well, so much for carrying the SB-800 with you). Personally, I'll be looking closely at the base ISO results, as that's what will drive my use of the camera. Likewise, the new autofocus system will get a lot of my attention, as it marks a dramatic change for Nikon.
Still, I'll take ISO improvements, as they give us photographers more options. But I'm happy using my fast Nikkors at more modest ISO values with the current cameras, thank you. Because high ISO is always going to compromise the best possible results you can get out of the camera, you're always better off trying to avoid it, if possible. Unless, of course, you like reduced dynamic range, lower color saturation, increased artifacts, higher noise levels, and the like. Put another way: even when I shoot with my Canon bodies I try to keep the ISO as low as possible. It simply makes for better data to build my pictures from.
Unfortunately, if I'm right about which prototype is being introduced this week, the Canon/Nikon pro user debates will continue unfettered. That's because Canon will up the 1DsII from 16mp to 21mp this week, and Nikon will be once again stuck facing the "fewer pixels" complaint from some users (because they're comparing the wrong camera with the wrong camera). But if you go back and read my roadmap, the high resolution follow up camera from Nikon isn't expected until the middle of next year (and the about-to-be-announced high-speed pro camera is following at about the predicted interval, especially if it doesn't ship until later this fall). Thus, the fireworks are probably not over yet--Nikon appears to be about six months behind Canon in announcing new pro cameras this time, but appears also to be clearly matching or exceeding them this time around (again, making some assumptions about image quality). I can wait six months.
I've been tough on Nikon over the years, and I'll continue to be (see right-hand column). But it's usually not the products themselves that I have the biggest complaints about. While I'll gladly move on to whatever Nikon introduces this week, it's the things that I've been complaining about that haven't resolved that need attention by Nikon: service, support, marketing, communication, information, consistency, availability, accessories, and, of course, Lenses Lenses Lenses. If Nikon ever got those things up to snuff, I could simply close down this Web site and go shooting every day. Sounds like a fine goal to me. Hope it happens before I retire...
|
