Photokina 2014: Quiet but significant

Nikon is trying to push it's customer base up to one of five different models of full frame bodies while ignoring the cropped frame, sports shooter. This idea doesn't go over very well in Nikon forums. I actually think that even cropped frame, while popular, is pushing it on size. I actually think many more images in the future will be shot on 1" sensors, especially as imaging technology improves.

I agree. There is going to be quite a bit of 1-inch business because of the huge portion of easy exposure values and common angles of view. I am not bullish on very good 1-inch performance stepping up to equal or surpass FourThirds or APS-C. Whatever technologies show up as improvements on the small and medium end will also surely show up on the large and huge end too. I tend to think, however, that the advantage on the big end will shrink. At present, I think the 24 megapixel APS-C sensors are a joke because they are a bit less clean, and there are no APS-C built lenses with sufficient resolving power to redeem the trade-off. It's marketing hooey.

For walk around cameras, 1" sensor seems fine. (Panasonic) 16MP 4/3 sensor only has little over half stop advantage over (Sony) 20MP 1" sensor, but the camera/lens is much bigger.

Personally, I think 20MP is way too much for 1" sensor. It maybe the reason that I never liked Sony cameras, too many megapixel for no reason at all.

That's true 99.9% IMHO of digicam users are just looking at monitor shots and nothing else. >8x10 prints are about nil and servied with FF or greater sensors. Digicam tech has pretty much max;d out and has nowhere to go as far as Photokina is concerned, they will have to focus on highend / satellite spy cameras.

I agree. Most folk do not print very often, even at 4 x 6, let alone at any size to hang on the wall. In the $800 vicinity, there are two angles to consider, same as usual, the best output or smaller size. I do wish that 1-inch might come in a 12-megapixel flavor to get the pixel size into better 3200 ISO territory. That is me being picky, however, because any day I need deep ISO, I am gonna take the bigger camera with fast glass out. The same argument could lead to a second camera choice on the Canon G7X. At present I think the 32OO ISO on 4/3 is better than the 1600 ISO on 20-megapixel 1 inch. To reach parity on pixel size, you would have to drop the 1-inch to around 8-megapixels. It is still 225 mm2 against 116 mm2, a factor of two essentially, all else equal (both sensors fabricated by Sony).

I guess the greatest portion of the replies here refer to the Nikon's reluctance to launch the D400. Well, here's what matters - the profit! By diversifying the FF segment on 5 products, Nikon shows us that the way to go if you're a serious amateur or a pro is Full Frame. This is with a reason- profit. Every single one of these cameras cost $1500 +. In addition to this there are the expensive FF lenses. At the other side (in Nikon's view) there are the APS-C, 4/3 or 1'' intended for the generation of "want to become a photographer"- the ones that now we'll collect the money from with APS-C line, and later we'll offer them a FF. Bearing in mind that there isn't a serious APS-C camera (except for the limited buffer D7100 and the age old D300s) Nikon wants to CREATE VALUE for the customer (squeeze another $300-$400) and FORCE him/her to go FF. If this strategy of profit making doesn't work then they'll continue "studying the market", launch D400 and live with the opportunity loss of $300.

And somebody mentioned 24MPix was too much for the APS-C. Yes, it is too much! I have a D7100, and with standard lenses (18-105) the pictures are equally sharp as the D7000/D5100. You only start to notice SLIGHT edge (20% improvement) when you mount your 35mm, 40mm micro nikkor, 50mm or your 17-50 F/2.8 Sigma, BUT only at apertures F/4-F/6.3. That's it. So, in my view APS-C can not accomplish the sharpness of its bigger bro - the D610, limited by the optics and the diffraction limit at f/6.3-f/8. I guess that for Nikon the COST of overcoming this obstacle with the lens sharpness and APS-C inability to perform/resolve pixels is greater than the cost of producing a superior FF system. And then agan FF sells for a lot more than APS-C. Btw, ever wondered why NX1 gonna be that expensive? ;) As for sports shooting use teleconverters :) don't use APS-C, be a PRO! (throw additional $3000 +)

Part of what Nikon "sells" is an idea of where THEY want everybody to go in order to steal the cash. Promoting full frame in a mainstream sense is an attempt to control the market rather than follow it. The other nowhere near truth "sale" is, full frame cameras ALWAYS take better pictures than APS-c. I like full frame in the places where they excel, but note that I find myself never there. You do not need a pro-level camera to shoot awesome pictures in the exposure value territories shared well by other cameras. No camera compensates for lack of artistry. The reason the LX100 is getting the press is because it hits the bulls eye in the ergo department. It's not a broad shot at the side of a barn. It resonates in the market and demonstrates a process of listening to ascertain where the opportunities wait. The brainstorming at Pana/Leica, to play in segment and tune, was very smart, clever even. I wish you could say the same of Nikon. "Manipulative" falls off the lips more often.

Why does Nikon diversify where there's no need to do so? For ex Nikon D3100, D3200, D3300, D5200, D5300?? Keep 4 - the D3300 (low amateur), D5300 (mid amateur), D7100 (high amateur) and make a pro DX camera D400 (11 fps, huge buffer, D300 body, 30MPix or so, no AA filter, increased sensitivity CMOS/graphene sensor for sports, macro and safari shots). Make it $50 - $100 less expensive than D610, get rid of the D610, continue the line with D750, D4ish (make it 24MPix, 11fps), then D810, and I almost forgot - the nostalgic obsolete Df. Btw, make the Df 24MPix so it could be used for a pro work, get rid of FF 16MPix sensor, make it 24MPix (CMOS/graphene mix or so). Don't give up on APS-C since the graphene is coming, not everybody likes bulky cameras FF and some of us need the reach of DX. And small DSLRs (like the D7100 type) in future with increased sensitivity/performance could in fact earn the most profits for Nikon and Canon. Pentax doesn't have FF...

@G1Houston - actually you were the one bringing Apple in this discussion... and the it seems a bit absurd to wait a miracle to happen from a company that is not really into photography.
And Mike's point is correct, for long long years apple didn't do any miracle, just reiterate on same phone/tablet and wait for the milions of fans to preorder :)

Exactly. Apple is far-far away from being innovative WRT photography. The best thing they've done, WRT photography, is their pretty much seamless pano implementation - but absolutely nothing else compared to Nokia's achievements in the last 11 years.

Actually, they're far behind the competition WRT sensor size (Nokias, and even Samsungs and Sonys), audio (Nokia: high-dynamic recordings, stereo / 5.1), video (4K) and RAW support (Nokia, Android L).

So which smartphone was responsible for creating the current frenzy for using cell phone to replace P&S? People love convenience — easy to carry, one touch to focus, one touch to take the picture, and one touch to share. These are the real users problems that that first smartphone was able to solve. The rest that some of you are talking about are simply bits and pieces in technology that impacts some users but not all. And it made worse when manufacturers jam "features" into a device and call it innovation (Yes with some cameras, we can now make phone calls). We now have buttons, dials, menus, and submenus and yet we still struggle to capture anything that moves, the meter still has issue with backlighting, the flash is still harsh, and for "real photography" you have to buy a "complex" camera. Why? What are the real photographic issues that the vast majority of users are facing today?

Still, being simple-to-use doesn't mean something is THE best. Not in the least. It may sell well - however, it can't even get close to the

- image / audio / in some respects, video quality of some of the competitors

- flexibility, particularly WRT the stock camera app. (Let me again point out that Apple makes it entirely impossible to use the semi-HDR and the sweep pano mode from other apps. The latter is probably the best-implemented camera feature of the iPhone.) And _STILL_ no RAW access - another HUGE problem.

That is, it's no use praising the iPhone in a techie community like that of DPReview. We aren't the major target demography of Apple (grandmothers, teenage girls and the like) - we know quite a bit about technology.

@Houston:
I don't think apple "was responsible" for smartphone photography. Yes they are extremely popular (however, in many countries outside US they are not the dominant phone you'll see on the street, so considering your tone i assume you are from US). They might had the best implementation which sustains your point, but that is not about "photography" ... it is about accessibility.

And second, yes you need a complex system to make good photos... photography, more than sensor/lens, is about light. If you take an image of a scene with good light you just need a whatever camera.
If the light and other parameters (such as speed of subjects, distance, etc) are difficult than you need something that can handle the situation (a complex camera).
If your subject if simple but you have to create the light (in a studio) you need a complex lighting system and a relative simple camera...

There is just not one solution for all these at this point... and apple is the most unlikely to give it.

People agree that the best camera is the one you have with you = smartphone. Why should a camera for "serious" photography be so complex to "use?" In the old days, even the most serious cameras have only two dials, one for the ISO/ASA, one for the shutter speed, and the aperture control is on the lens. It was very simple and yet powerful and versatile. Can we simplify it and can simplification of the photographic process itself be considered "good photography?" If our meter is accurate (=good algorithm) knows to adjust to the lighting and tonality of the subject, do we still need a dial for E/C? If touch-AF works well, why do we still need a dial and 4-way controller to manually move the AF-points? … If the algorithm controlling a lot of the basic things in the camera is smart, coupled with a simple and elegant UI, some day all we have to do is to compose. This will shorten the learning curve in photography making it more assessable to the mass.

" If the algorithm controlling a lot of the basic things in the camera is smart, coupled with a simple and elegant UI, some day all we have to do is to compose. "

The keyword in your text is "if". Let's not forget that the iPhone almost completely lacks scene recognition - something, say, Panasonic has implemented very well (see their iA modes in even their 5-year-old P&S cameras - I know because I did test iA on, say, the ZS3). This is why it just can't detect when one wants to shoot quick-moving subjects in low(er)-light. No, the iPhone will always use the lowest ISO possible, up until 1/30...1/15s. It'll NEVER intelligently bump the ISO to allow for significantly higher shutter speeds in ANY case.

This was ONE of the reasons why people have always "whined" for manual modes on the iPhone. Before iOS8, it was simply impossible to properly shoot these kinds of objects.

True, iPhones have limitations, which are to be expected. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they generally add features with cautions. Not raising the ISO is a way to keep the noise down, a sensible thing to do when the sensor was not so robust. Speaking of Panasonic, when they were using the "old" sensor in their first series of m4/3 cameras, GH1, G1, GF1, G2, etc, the camera would refuse to raise ISO above 400, which was the sweet spot of that sensor. This was well discussed in the m4/3 forum back then and many hated it. I assume Apple did not want to complicate the control of the camera to slow down its operation (limited processing power, battery life, etc) and/or to make it unintuitive to use. With iPhone 5, they added the 64-bit chip so they are now ready to greatly improve the cameras without worrying that the phone will be sluggish overall. There is a report from NYT by an award-winning pro photographer who was impressed by what the new iP6 can do.

"True, iPhones have limitations, which are to be expected. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they generally add features with cautions. Not raising the ISO is a way to keep the noise down, a sensible thing to do when the sensor was not so robust."

1. A noisy image is far better than a hopelessly blurred one. Every single camera manufacturer knows this - except for Apple.

2. to keep the user interface as simple as possible, they could easily added intelligent scene mode recognition - as did Pana, along with tons of other manufacturers, years before, that is, on even slower hardware. They didn't do so.

(cont'd)

"Speaking of Panasonic, when they were using the "old" sensor in their first series of m4/3 cameras, GH1, G1, GF1, G2, etc, the camera would refuse to raise ISO above 400, which was the sweet spot of that sensor. This was well discussed in the m4/3 forum back then and many hated it."

Still, the early 2009 ZS3 had a very decent iA mode, which did bump the ISO high when noticing possible motion blur. Not even the current iPhones, which have orders of magnitude more computing power and better high-ISO performance (the 1/2.3" ZS3 had a pre-2009 sensor with already pretty much useless ISO1600; the ISO1600 of the iPhone 4s/5/5s/6 is much better), have anything like that.

" I assume Apple did not want to complicate the control of the camera to slow down its operation (limited processing power, battery life, etc) and/or to make it unintuitive to use."

Again, Apple could have implemented automatic recognition. It wouldn't have made the UI more complicated at all.

(cont'd)

"forcing more people buy their lower end stuff."

No one forces anyone to purchase smaller-sensor system cameras. If you don't like their IQ, you don't purchase them.

Who gets excited about a $300,000 Rolls-Royce? The DO lens is $6500 and huge.

Dimensions 5.0 x 9.1" (12.70 x 23.11 cm)
Weight 4.27 lb (1.94 kg)

Granted it's $3000 less than the 500mm f/4 which is $9500. Fortunately there are many such lenses for sale in the used market. Rich guys buy them, use them once, and sell them for a lot less money.

samsung's buffers are the worst part of their cameras thus far. The most disapponting aspect of my nx300 (and, before that, nx200 and nx100) is buffer depth and the speed of buffer cleaning. NX300 can take only 5 raw pictures in a row, after which it spends about 15 seconds to transfer them to the card (during this time, no burst is allowed or, at most, a couple of frames).

I really hope that, being nx1 aimed to pros or high level enthusiasts, it comes embedded at least with 1GB of fast buffer memory (2GB much better).

Besides, it allows UHS-II cards to be used. If those are used at max speed, they can reach 150MB/sec and beyond in writing speed. Meaning that at least 3-4fps can be achieved when buffer is full.

If not the case, than NX1 is DOA.

I'd also hope that, aside 15fps, there are some lower burst speeds selectable via the menu. For instance, I usually need no more than 5fps. With the lower speed, and a fast SD card, the buffer could become almost unlimited, theoretically.

@ tecnoworld : If you look at Imaging Ressource preview, you'll see a screen grab where the fps seems to be user selectable between 8 and 15 fps for the "high" rating. I imagine that you have the same possibility for the "normal" rating (maybe between 4 and 7 fps?)

You say risk. I don't get it - what's the problem continuing with 70D successor 80D whatever, just making 80D-M (for mirrorless). In this way no DSLR line is sacrificed/trust broken, familiar body/controls provided, and full line of optics available through EF to new mount adapter. Or they might use existing m43, etc mount and immediately get traction with already existing lenses in the market.

I think Canikon are old farts and cowards regarding mirrorless, and they wait to see who (Sony/PanOlympus/Samsung) is going to survive and shape trends, then join that trendy train. In either way they should be doing something in labs already, otherwise you cannot take mass production/enter market overnight.

+1.
D7100 is my favorite, and it is also "weather-sealed".

Ml may be theoretically cheater to make but at the moment they are more expensive to buy. Ml cameras have their inherited problems as well, lighter body=more prone to shutter shock, smaller body=less physical controls, harder to hold, difficult to balance with larger lense, etc. inferior focuse tracking ability, although this is improving, so is the AF in the dSLR. Most importantly, the IQ of most ml cameras can only be best described as comparable to those of the dSLR so if you need the best IQ, dSLR is still the answer and they are getting cheaper and lighter too. BC dSLRs do not use EVF, their battery last a lot longer. The D750 can shoot over 1,000 pictures in one charge. How many can you get with a typical ml camera?

Yes, lower costs for the manufacturers combined with higher prices for the consumers means much higher profit margins. That is exactly what companies seek to achieve when sales volume is shrinking.

If mirrorless cameras are less expensive to manufacture then why all mirrorless companies are loosing money?

@kardardr may seem soft to you but I personally don't feel it is just a manufacturing push. While I've used both I prefer the flexibility, size, and weight of mirror less. The fact that IQ is equal is no small thing. It means you have to want a mirror. I can see the appeal but it isn't for me. The next generation of photographers will be coming from smart phones. An OVF will feel backwards because you can't see the exposure in real time any more. I think that's a big reason (and one of many reasons) they are the "future". There will still be SLRs for years. Just like there are still digital rangefinders. But they will become increasing more niche IMHO.

"that" question again. My answer is practicality from user point of view. I consider only m43 and FF ml's as viable options at all. APS-C is too close in weight and size to FF therefore are really pointless.

m43: unbeatable weight and size (compared to APSC/FF DSLR's more than 2-3 times less in weight), IQ, real time exposure validation, ever increasing list of superb lenses, filters. Traveled a lot, made tens of thousands photos with m43, never missed heavy D7100+24-70/2.8/D600+70-200/2.8. All those faithful users of D600+70-200/f2.8 alike systems sooner or later realize they want lighter systems, and m43 deliver. See Van Thorpe motivation on youtube why he uses m43 system. He reflects thoughts of myself and many more photographers.

FF ml's: for those remaining 10% of cases where you really need bigger sensor, shallow DOF, but these are not ultimate portable systems at all, too close in size/weigt to DSLR's.

"APS-C is too close in weight and size to FF therefore are really pointless."

Yeah the A6000 is practically the same size of a 5D MkIII so what's the point? Hard to get your point as overall APS-C has better IQ and performance than M43 and 1/3rd the price of FF (or less)?

Pointless for the 1 percenters maybe but in the real world they pretty much have a point.

While the mirror assembly is complex, its R&D has long been paid for and it can now be made well and mostly trouble-free. While the SONY A7 can be cheaper to make, it is also designed to be cheap. It does not have a large grip, no built-in flash, very small battery, ... etc. Thus A7 does not compete with Nikon FF cameras in the same market. Furthermore their lenses are not necessary smaller and they are certainly very expensive. I once thought one major advantage of the ML system is face detection AF and metering, but Nikon has that built into the D810 and D750. From the test I have seen, it works very well. So dSLRs are not sitting still. ML does still have the advantage in videos, but the question is for high end still photographers, who really need high end videos? Will their phones be enough?

@keeponkeepingon: last time I checked A6000 it WAS mirrorless, so we are not talking about same things. I was emphasizing ML convenience vs mechanical/heavy/big SLR systems.

BB:

I think the point is that the NX1 is not under the "Serious mirrorless" heading.

Albeit the NX1 is under "Race to the top..."

Samsung's problem is that they are not successful in getting the photo retail channel (camera stores) to stock their products. HUGE ones like B&H do, but the more typical stores often do not.

Peter K Burian:

In the US, Best Buy is starting to stock Samsung mirrorless APSC bodies+kits.

One of the few reasons to enter a Best Buy--since except for a cheap laptop or two nearly everything else is on sale for less elsewhere.

BB:

Then why is Serious mirrorless a section heading sans quotation marks?

@Barney Britton - A bias is not too well hidden behind missing quotation marks. Why don't you just admit it and get on with things. Seems you have an answer for every critique toward you on this site. You have become the subject rather than the Photography. Please take this as friendly advice.

What, just because it's smaller but packs just about everything else (that's better too) it's not a true replacement? This is a camera, not a car.

They announced three camera's in the summer. K-S1, Q-S1 WG-M1. I know the company is called Ricoh, but they also carry the Pentax brand name. It just seems like the last dslr-maker next to Canon and Nikon deserves a little more attention on a digital photography website. Maybe you just didn't like the pr-guys hair.

That's why the K-S1 was in the poll: What was the most interesting new camera at Photokina? I guess. Mr. Britton. Ricoh certainly doesn't price the K-S1 as entry level. (Whatever I may think of it).

Bash me all me want. yslee1 cgarrard. It does not make me less right. Calling me a fanboy does not help your argument.