I don't mean which lens, body or accessory you want or would like, I mean what do you want from them in general and as a company ?
Personally I'd like them to stop making so many dslrs that overlap in features and price and a far more defined line between cameras that are for the consumer market, enthusiasts and professionals.
What Do You Want From Nikon In 2011 ?
(75 posts) (45 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Really want: DSLRs - 300s/700 update -
Would be fun to see: Maybe a point and shoot with high iso performance like the P7000.
Love my Primes: 2.8 and 1.8 prime lens updates maybe move some more to 1.8.
Posted 2 years ago # -
In 2011 I'd like Nikon to invite me to their yearly executives and engineers party. I hear President Makoto Kimura likes to get bat-sh*t crazy on Nikon wine :^)
Or maybe I'll just stop by the party at Whitman's house. Those Melville guys and gals know how to party too ;^)
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've said this far to much in 2010 but like TaoTaJared a D700 refresh with higher resolution.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Personally I would love to see a 1700$ Fx camera. Also the D700 update that's a mini D3s at 18mp. It's a major need of D3s iso and 100% viewfinder for me.
Lens wise I'd like them to produce a 50 1.2 and 135 1.8 for 2k. Iknow that's not the question but for the actual goal of nikon I'd like them to achieve would them to actually ramp up initial production of lenses and bodies. I can't imagine the wait time the 35 1.4 will be, personally I'm still waiting on my 85 1.4 I ordered Sept 20th. Almost 3 months now...Posted 2 years ago # -
broxibear said:
Personally I'd like them to stop making so many dslrs that overlap in features and price and a far more defined line between cameras that are for the consumer market, enthusiasts and professionals.IMHO you're seeing this because Nikon are in the middle of bumping all their DSLRs upmarket. Once the D300s and D5000 get replaced and discontinued there'll be less overlap and better distinction between the range.
Posted 2 years ago # -
D700 @ 18MP with dual SD slots and video. for under $2500.00 ;-P
Posted 2 years ago # -
What would really get me excited is the D3x pixels, the D3s ISO, full HD, geotagging, RF remote in a D700 body. Better than that would be icing on the cake. I would be willing to pay say $3000 to $4000 for that. If such a beast comes out even at $5K I may go for it. A swivel screen would be nice too. A D4 at D3x price would be much harder to swallow.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Better availability of products. Often when I need a lens or body for a particular project they are not available. They need to rationalize their line so that we can buy what we need and get it when we need it. It does no good to produce a 600mm lens if no one can buy it. Same with the other high end bodies and lenses.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Body - like most other people - a D400/700x/800 - with mid teens Mpx, good ISO performance (I'm still on D200) and video etc etc - yes yes - repeated infinitum here.
But in general I think - cost effective primes.
Although I would love a set of 1.4 primes (I have the 50) - it puzzles me how the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 can be relatively cheap, but all the others (24, 85) etc almost x5 in price.Posted 2 years ago # -
I think Nikon is doing good by us consumers generally..
However, I would like it if they opened up their firmware with a good API for us technos to hack about in it.. ( with a wifi connection!)
DSLR.. I would love it if that created a D7000 FX with a slightly tweeked D700 sensor in it!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I really want a D800 (D700 replacement) with 24 MP. As a very happy D700/D3 user, nothing less than 24 MP will tempt me to upgrade!
In cameras, I expect a D800 with 24 MP, a D4 with 34-36 MP and a D400 with 16 MP and even better video performance than the D7000.
In lenses I expect an AF-S 70-200mm f/4G VR and an AF-S 50mm f/1.2. I also hope for an AF-S 180mm f/2.8G VR but don't expect one!
Later in 2011, I expect a new mirrorless camera system using a 14 MP sensor and in-lens VR. The sensor will be of similar size to Four Thirds but with an aspect ratio of 3:2.
Posted 2 years ago # -
#1: Move away from their own editing software development and provide / sell tools for raw handling in Light Room, Aperture, PhotoShop, and any other major package being used.
#2: Pay more attention to the lower end wildlife and action photography market. That means AF-S in the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6, VRII in the 300mm f/4, and a new 400mm f/5.6.
#3: Improve their product stocking. How can the TC-20E III be constantly out of stock? Thom Hogan mentioned that they appeared as being in stock at B&H, and 30 minutes later they were gone.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Affordable primes like the 35 f1.8. I don't need nano-triple the price for all lenses coating. If it can be done with the 35 lens why not others?
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Nikon GP-2 with compass and 10-pin remote connector.
Nikon D4 with new sensor type 16/48 Megapixel.
Triple card slot CF, CF, SD and low-light better than D3s.Nikon D800 & Nikon D400 16 Megapixel, good in low-light as D3s.
Nikon D5100 with D7000 sensor, touch screen, AF Fine-tune & meter with manual focus lens. :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
tcole1983 said:
Affordable primes like the 35 f1.8. I don't need nano-triple the price for all lenses coating. If it can be done with the 35 lens why not others?Fast glass is expensive.
Maybe a new cheap 85mm 1.8 AF-S for FX?
Since the 1.4 AF-S is so incredibly expensive, it would make sense to make a cheaper 85mm 1.8 AF-S.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't know why Nikon doesn't do what Tokina's been doing... have a line of well-built, relatively fast (2.8 in Tokina's case) glass that can be bought without mortgaging your kidneys. It's striking, in some ways, that while Nikon's cameras come in a variety of options ranging from rank amateur to top-of-the-line pro (with pricing to match), their lenses are either comparatively cheap (often with build quality to match) or expensive as hell, with no in-between. You can't tell me it can't be done; what's more curious is why they don't bother.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What's in it for Nikon, aslightdelay?
Brand dilution? Cannibalized pro lens sales?
Believe me, I wish they did it as well, but if one has a limited capacity for precision glass production, one is best served to maximize revenue by selling as much of it as possible in high-margin products. Sell enough cheap shit to get people in the door, and no more.
If Tokina could charge more I'm sure they would rather play Nikon's game than Sigma's. (And if they keep up the last decade's track record of some quite good glass they very well might.)
NSXType-R said:
Fast glass is expensive.Maybe a new cheap 85mm 1.8 AF-S for FX?
Since the 1.4 AF-S is so incredibly expensive, it would make sense to make a cheaper 85mm 1.8 AF-S.
What'cha thinking? $750, $800 MSRP?
Posted 2 years ago # -
I look at it this way, Drab: If Nikon was willing to pull off a prosumer line of glass with pricing that looked closer to Tokina's than to, say, the current pro line, they'd probably gain back a significant amount of the market share they currently lose to third-party manufacturers.
Just to give you one example: A normal zoom. If you're shooting DX, you currently have two options if you want Nikkor glass: The 18-55 3.5-5.6 for, what, $130? Or you have the 17-55 2.8 for more than ten times that amount. You mean to tell me they gain nothing by having a $600 option they can plop in the middle of that? As it is, if I want a fast normal, I'm more likely to look at a Tokina, Tamron, or even Sigma. UWA for DX? Tokina's 11-16 and 12-24 options cost a fraction of their Nikkor equivalents, and give damn good optical performance, especially given the price difference. I'm sorry, but I'm not enough of a fanboy to justify paying several times the price if I can find something that gives good real world results for a comparative pittance. And I cannot be the only person who looks at it that way.
I'll grant you, maybe this is built into Nikon's business model; maybe to them certain customers just aren't worth having, and they're glad to give up market share. But from where I'm sitting, it makes a lot more sense to give people options that fall somewhere between Yugo and Bentley. :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Drab said:
What's in it for Nikon, aslightdelay?Brand dilution? Cannibalized pro lens sales?
Believe me, I wish they did it as well, but if one has a limited capacity for precision glass production, one is best served to maximize revenue by selling as much of it as possible in high-margin products. Sell enough cheap shit to get people in the door, and no more.
If Tokina could charge more I'm sure they would rather play Nikon's game than Sigma's. (And if they keep up the last decade's track record of some quite good glass they very well might.)
What'cha thinking? $750, $800 MSRP?
If it were for that much, I'd bite for sure. The 105 macro I'm saving up for is about that price, slightly more actually.
And I'd love some FX glass, it's just in case I go upmarket in the future.
And there is a dearth of fast DX glass that's glaringly obvious. But maybe Nikon has something in mind in the future? They're a slow moving company for sure.
I would imagine the next lens to update would be the 85 1.8.
aslightdelay said:
I look at it this way, Drab: If Nikon was willing to pull off a prosumer line of glass with pricing that looked closer to Tokina's than to, say, the current pro line, they'd probably gain back a significant amount of the market share they currently lose to third-party manufacturers.Just to give you one example: A normal zoom. If you're shooting DX, you currently have two options if you want Nikkor glass: The 18-55 3.5-5.6 for, what, $130? Or you have the 17-55 2.8 for more than ten times that amount. You mean to tell me they gain nothing by having a $600 option they can plop in the middle of that? As it is, if I want a fast normal, I'm more likely to look at a Tokina, Tamron, or even Sigma. UWA for DX? Tokina's 11-16 and 12-24 options cost a fraction of their Nikkor equivalents, and give damn good optical performance, especially given the price difference. I'm sorry, but I'm not enough of a fanboy to justify paying several times the price if I can find something that gives good real world results for a comparative pittance. And I cannot be the only person who looks at it that way.
I'll grant you, maybe this is built into Nikon's business model; maybe to them certain customers just aren't worth having, and they're glad to give up market share. But from where I'm sitting, it makes a lot more sense to give people options that fall somewhere between Yugo and Bentley. :)
Shh... don't give Nikon any ideas, you might kill Tokina and Sigma's sales.
It's true there aren't any fast DX glass for cheap other than the 35mm 1.8, it's been my complaint for a while. I can't help what Nikon builds or doesn't build, so I figure, why complain? :D
Posted 2 years ago # -
aslightdelay said:
Just to give you one example: A normal zoom. If you're shooting DX, you currently have two options if you want Nikkor glass: The 18-55 3.5-5.6 for, what, $130? Or you have the 17-55 2.8 for more than ten times that amount. You mean to tell me they gain nothing by having a $600 option they can plop in the middle of that?I think Nikon would argue the 16-85 fills that hole. ;)
As it is, if I want a fast normal, I'm more likely to look at a Tokina, Tamron, or even Sigma. UWA for DX? Tokina's 11-16 and 12-24 options cost a fraction of their Nikkor equivalents, and give damn good optical performance, especially given the price difference. I'm sorry, but I'm not enough of a fanboy to justify paying several times the price if I can find something that gives good real world results for a comparative pittance. And I cannot be the only person who looks at it that way.
I agree, the 11-16 is a "must have" DX lens as far as I am concerned.
But how large do you really think the market is? Let's stick with Tokina's DX ultra-wides for a moment, just long enough to play this out. We're talking a very narrow group. The group is defined by two things as best I can figure:
1 - Willing to buy third party.
2 - Nikon's 10-24 is too expensive or too slow.That seems simple enough. For Nikon to convert people for whom #1 is true they need to be competitive on #2.
How do they do that w/o significantly harming the sales of their existing product? (The 10-24 in this case)
I don't see the incentive. Consider the fact they can't make as much glass as they could sell today and how do you justify dipping into the lower-margin game?
I'll grant you, maybe this is built into Nikon's business model; maybe to them certain customers just aren't worth having, and they're glad to give up market share. But from where I'm sitting, it makes a lot more sense to give people options that fall somewhere between Yugo and Bentley. :)
As I said previously, I share the desire. But I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. (I got 30 years left I figure.)
To clarify, though, I don't think Nikon believes certain customers aren't worth having, I think they know they can't be a jack-of-all trades when it comes to lenses, not and keep their brand image. Since they are limited they choose to focus on what makes them the most money.
And, if Tokina keeps cranking out the quality like they appear to have been we're all in for a better ride. ;)
PS - enjoying this.
Posted 2 years ago # -
NikoDoby said:
In 2011 I'd like Nikon to invite me to their yearly executives and engineers party. I hear President Makoto Kimura likes to get bat-sh*t crazy on Nikon wine :^)Or maybe I'll just stop by the party at Whitman's house. Those Melville guys and gals know how to party too ;^)
Niko, come over to my place. I promise You can drink as much vodka as You body can handle :)
Posted 2 years ago # -
"I think Nikon would argue the 16-85 fills that hole. ;)"
Sure, the price point fits to a "t," and it's a decent lens, but it's a slowpoke... another 3.5-5.6.
Ultra-wides are a special case, as are, say, zooms in the 400-500mm range. I think that for a lot of people, the wide end of a normal zoom is wide enough (or, barring that, 16-18mm and a couple of footsteps; I don't think we all do all of our shooting on boats and cliff edges :) ). But when you're looking at something that a lot of people can reasonably be expected to use (like a fast 17-55, or a fast 70-200/300), you're not talking about being a "jack of all trades." You're talking about a potentially sizeable chunk of market share. I think it only dilutes your brand image if it's done wrong (i.e. putting your name on lenses that give poor performance). Likewise, trying to fill every last hole isn't a great idea, either. I don't think there are millions clamoring for an 8mm 1.4 from Nikkor, for instance, and at times like that, sure, let the third party manufacturers step in and fill the gap.
With that said, unless/until Nikon jumps on that bandwagon, I agree we should be thankful that there're aftermarket manufacturers willing to take up the slack.
(also enjoying this)
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
