History revisited
25/08/08 19:37 Filed in: Products
It seems that the cards have been dealt in the world of photographic products. The success of the new generation of Nikon cameras is undeniable and in its wake the stature of the Barnack format as the standard for the future sensor size has been firmly established. Known as the full-format chip or FF-sensor (in fact not the best choice as a designator, technically spoken), the 24 x 36mm sensor is the benchmark for all current and future digital cameras. Whether this format is really required or needed is no longer a question, it is simply a fact. Olympus bravely tried to topple the dominance of the classical film size. The FourThird format has its technical and optical advantages, but is simply is not what we need or want.
At first it was Canon (as usual taking the role of innovator) whose products redefined the scene, but one might say that with the 20 Mb sensor the limit for practical photography had been reached. Many users complain about the unwieldy file-sizes that are generated. Nikon took a more sensible approach and restricted the size to 12 Mb. In fact the classical choice between a high speed film with less resolution (Tri-X) and a low speed film with high resolution (Technical Pan). The TP does not exist anymore, but TX is still going strong.
There is no question that Nikon will introduce a 20+ megapixel sensor (presumably the same that is being used by Sony in the upcoming ‘900’ model. The additional Nikon model (coded as D3X) is required stuff to cover the top end of the market, but more out of prestige than out of necessity.
Sony will want such a camera to signal their seriousness for the professional up-market domain. But the Sony products, however cleverly marketed are Minolta’s in disguise and just as in the past, the Minolta camera line was always a B-side product. In the past, Canon and Nikon were the two companies that mattered with Pentax a good second choice (and yes the Leica as a choice out of passion). If you really need a big sized negative (sorry, a large image file) you had and have the Hasselblad and the other big format products.
In that photographic past, Nikon was the professional choice par excellence. The range of Nikon products for the enthusiast or even fanatical amateur was very limited if not non-existant. Canon on the other hand was very strong in the amateur market with some inroads in the professional market. This changed with the introduction of the fine F-series of cameras, but this camera never broke the dominance of Nikon.
We see this same market segmentation today. Canon is unbeatable in the range that is covered by the 1000D to the 40D/5D and vulnerable in the 1Dx series. Nikon is for now the champion of the 24x36mm sized digital sensor with the D3 and D700 and there are so many gaps in this number game that it is reasonable to expect more products with the same sensor size as soon as scale economies will have its effects on price and cost.
This simple choice matrix (APS-C or 24x36mm and 12 Mp versus 20Mp and Nikon versus Canon) will make obsolete the current obsession (as exemplified by the dpreview approach) with the comparison of endless feature lists (see my comment about the infantile consumer). These lists of features are compiled with the assumption that more features are always to be preferred. But counting features is the simple alternative to really in-depth reviews that take time to compile and take time to read and digest. Water will become the scarcest resource in the near future (not oil!), but time will be a good second and with it the ability to cope with TIO (total information overload).
Am I ready to buy a Nikon? No, I am sitting on my hands, waiting for Leica to introduce the rangefinder camera that will have as much impact on the world as the M3 once had (an impossible task? Maybe, but without hope we are all lost).
And in the meantime I am comparing Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T_Max 100 in the very classical CG512 developer. And I am printing images developed with Aperture and Silver Efex Pro on baryta paper in the Epson 3800. Still living in two worlds. And I am very impressed by the Silverfast DC program.
At first it was Canon (as usual taking the role of innovator) whose products redefined the scene, but one might say that with the 20 Mb sensor the limit for practical photography had been reached. Many users complain about the unwieldy file-sizes that are generated. Nikon took a more sensible approach and restricted the size to 12 Mb. In fact the classical choice between a high speed film with less resolution (Tri-X) and a low speed film with high resolution (Technical Pan). The TP does not exist anymore, but TX is still going strong.
There is no question that Nikon will introduce a 20+ megapixel sensor (presumably the same that is being used by Sony in the upcoming ‘900’ model. The additional Nikon model (coded as D3X) is required stuff to cover the top end of the market, but more out of prestige than out of necessity.
Sony will want such a camera to signal their seriousness for the professional up-market domain. But the Sony products, however cleverly marketed are Minolta’s in disguise and just as in the past, the Minolta camera line was always a B-side product. In the past, Canon and Nikon were the two companies that mattered with Pentax a good second choice (and yes the Leica as a choice out of passion). If you really need a big sized negative (sorry, a large image file) you had and have the Hasselblad and the other big format products.
In that photographic past, Nikon was the professional choice par excellence. The range of Nikon products for the enthusiast or even fanatical amateur was very limited if not non-existant. Canon on the other hand was very strong in the amateur market with some inroads in the professional market. This changed with the introduction of the fine F-series of cameras, but this camera never broke the dominance of Nikon.
We see this same market segmentation today. Canon is unbeatable in the range that is covered by the 1000D to the 40D/5D and vulnerable in the 1Dx series. Nikon is for now the champion of the 24x36mm sized digital sensor with the D3 and D700 and there are so many gaps in this number game that it is reasonable to expect more products with the same sensor size as soon as scale economies will have its effects on price and cost.
This simple choice matrix (APS-C or 24x36mm and 12 Mp versus 20Mp and Nikon versus Canon) will make obsolete the current obsession (as exemplified by the dpreview approach) with the comparison of endless feature lists (see my comment about the infantile consumer). These lists of features are compiled with the assumption that more features are always to be preferred. But counting features is the simple alternative to really in-depth reviews that take time to compile and take time to read and digest. Water will become the scarcest resource in the near future (not oil!), but time will be a good second and with it the ability to cope with TIO (total information overload).
Am I ready to buy a Nikon? No, I am sitting on my hands, waiting for Leica to introduce the rangefinder camera that will have as much impact on the world as the M3 once had (an impossible task? Maybe, but without hope we are all lost).
And in the meantime I am comparing Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T_Max 100 in the very classical CG512 developer. And I am printing images developed with Aperture and Silver Efex Pro on baryta paper in the Epson 3800. Still living in two worlds. And I am very impressed by the Silverfast DC program.