Cameras and Photography Explained

I don't normally do this, but I've updated my 2010 predictions a bit to reflect a slight bit more information and some additional second-guessing on my part. Basically, I've added a couple of cameras to the upcoming Nikon expectations.

Probably the best way to think about what Nikon likely will provide in 2010 is to consider what is likely to be available to customers at the end of the year. In terms of interchangeable lens models, my new and best guess at Nikon's end of the year looks like this:

Yes, three lines of camera and three sensor sizes, I think. This is a serious gambit if it is attempted, and it's going to require some real clarity in Nikon marketing that currently isn't there even with DX/FX (MX and M models in the chart would be mirrorless cameras with a smaller-than-DX sensor; and no I don't know that Nikon has selected MX as the designate, I'm just using it here as a placeholder).

The top level is easy to understand: 12 and 24mp options in small and large bodies. While others don't think that you can justify the price differential of the dual models, I do. This is basically a pro versus prosumer approach. I would say, however, that Nikon needs to get better at defining those two terms. For example, it's easy enough to say that a pro probably isn't that interested in a pop-up, on-camera flash, but a pro is interested in on-camera remote flash control. The prosumer bodies have that, the pro bodies don't, so Nikon hasn't truly gotten their pro/prosumer definitions clear in product development.

Nevertheless, I doubt many would have any real issues with the top level if it works out the way I've shown it. All four cameras that fit into this block look like they'd be real winners given Nikon's recent introductions. Note that all of these cameras are made at the Sendai plant in Japan. Also, at this point I don't think we'll see any of the missing models in that lineup announced until late March.

The mid-level as I envision it feels a bit anemic to me. Part of that is the 12mp sensor Nikon uses is nearing its last legs. Part is that Nikon seems a little unsure what the definition of a camera in this group is. Nikon's approach has been that it has to be stripped down from the top level (e.g. fewer of the features found in the top level). Moreover, these models generally don't push state-of-the-art, but more state-of-the-affordable. I've moved the D300s down from the pro/prosumer category because I think that with the complete stable of FX bodies apparent by the end of the year, the D300s is going to be more clearly the "pro-like" camera at the top of the consumer heap rather than the low end of the pro lineup. This, too, adds confusion to this middle level. Note that as I envision the end of the year, the three models in this category all have different "personalities." They are less like a low-to-high range of cameras than they are a scattershot from a shotgun in terms of design. Note also the gap in price between this group and the group above it.

Finally, the low level cameras. It's clear to me that the future of low-end DSLR-like cameras is mirrorless. The Panasonic and Olympus m4/3 efforts are good enough to prove that not just to me, but to the buying public, too: despite higher prices, they took significant market share last year. But the funny thing is this: the Olympus E-P1 and Panasonic GF1 are actually targeted too high! A lot of their sales appeal has come from higher end photographers grabbing them as "more competent compacts." The true place for mirrorless is in the gap between something like a Nikon P90 and a Nikon D5000. And that's exactly where Nikon appears to be targeting with their mirrorless entry. That means smaller sensor, smaller body, smaller price.

It's also clear to me that the D3000 (and the whole D40x, D60, D3000 progression) disappears out of the Nikon lineup at some point, making three clear classes of interchangeable lens cameras distinguished by sensor size and lens mount (MX, DX, FX). I'm also not sure that such an approach actually works, as it completely violates one of the long-standing premises in Nikon's success: compatibility. Sure, the DX and FX share the same mount, but someone buying DX and eventually growing to FX is going to be obsoleting a lot of their lenses and buying new. The problem is even bigger between MX and DX.

I see Nikon having no problem defending FX. Everything seems reasonable well with FX if Nikon produces what I think they'll produce this year (well, okay, we're missing a lot of FX lenses still ;~). The DX middle seems okay, too, other than the fact that the middle will get smaller in coming years (FX will proceed downward, mirrorless will proceed upward, essentially neutering the DX category). So the question I have is whether MX can function as a feeder to FX. Without details, of course, I can't answer that. But my gut says no based upon what I know so far. Let's hope I'm wrong.