Nikon will not go to full frame...

John A. Stovall wrote:
Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon.

Not necessarily. Look at the weasel words, "but it's not clear at this
moment if we go for it."

"Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor
Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan,
will come out with a 35mm full-size image sensor in pro-oriented
digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new
full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports.

"35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the
digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. "We have been exploring the
possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not
clear at this moment if we go for it. We feel that the 'DX' format or
APS-C size will be the best for the DSLR and interchangeable lenses.
Based on the assumption Nikon has been bringing up in number the
lenses for the DX format, change in the size of the sensor would
possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related
to angle of view," he says.

Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full
frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If
they announce that they're working on full-frame, they will Osborne*
sales of the D2X*. OTOH, if they absolutely deny that they'll ever come
out with a full-frame camera, the pros will all simply abandon Nikon and
move over to Canon. So the best option is for Nikon to do exactly what
their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that
it will be available any time soon.



*For those non-Silicon Valley people, 'Osborned' (or to 'Osborne'
oneself), is to promise a follow-on product that is then delayed, but
kills demand for the current product and sinks the company. This is what
Adam Osborne did with his company.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
John A. Stovall wrote:
Well Nikon has just turned the high end pro market over to Canon.

Not necessarily. Look at the weasel words, "but it's not clear at this
moment if we go for it."

"Nikon Denies Possibility of Making 35mm Full-Frame Sensor
Industry watchers have been discussing if Nikon Corp., Tokyo, Japan,
will come out with a 35mm full-size image sensor in pro-oriented
digital SLR. A Nikon top official denied the possibility of making new
full-size sensors, Photo Trade Express reports.

"35mm is a film format, which I do not think is necessary in the
digital era," says Makoto Kimura of Nikon. "We have been exploring the
possibility of commercializing a 35mm full-size sensor, but it's not
clear at this moment if we go for it. We feel that the 'DX' format or
APS-C size will be the best for the DSLR and interchangeable lenses.
Based on the assumption Nikon has been bringing up in number the
lenses for the DX format, change in the size of the sensor would
possibly puzzle some users in finding effective focal length related
to angle of view," he says.

Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full
frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If
they announce that they're working on full-frame, they will Osborne*
sales of the D2X*. OTOH, if they absolutely deny that they'll ever come
out with a full-frame camera, the pros will all simply abandon Nikon and
move over to Canon. So the best option is for Nikon to do exactly what
their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that
it will be available any time soon.


Pretty well reasoned, except the part where you claim that pros will abandon
Nikon if they don't feel a ff sensor is forth coming. There are a lot of
pros who could simply care less.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full
frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If
they announce that they're working on full-frame, they will Osborne*
sales of the D2X*. OTOH, if they absolutely deny that they'll ever come
out with a full-frame camera, the pros will all simply abandon Nikon and
move over to Canon. So the best option is for Nikon to do exactly what
their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that
it will be available any time soon.


Pretty well reasoned, except the part where you claim that pros will abandon
Nikon if they don't feel a ff sensor is forth coming. There are a lot of
pros who could simply care less.

Yes, I should have been more specific as to which sort of pros actually
care about the benefits of larger sensors. It isn't so much full-frame,
as being able to offer low-noise at higher ISOs, and being able to come
out with professional lenses for the smaller sensors.

Even though larger pixels will always be lower noise, if all else is
equal, at some point it may be academic if the noise levels are low
enough. Nikon (or more accurately, Sony) isn't there yet.

It'll be interesting to see how the Cypress sensor in the Olympus E-330
fares. The early sensors from Fill-Factory (which Cypress took over)
were pretty bad.

Nikon has already lost all the early adopters that absolutely needed
low-noise and a full line of professional lenses. These are the most
profitable customers. If they come out with these products now, they'll
be selling to a much smaller TAM. So maybe it's better to just forget
it. Not every company can sell into all market segments. Still, it'd be
good for consumers if Canon had some competition at the high end.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Matt Clara wrote:

Nikon is in a difficult position. They desperately want to go to full
frame, but they have no full-frame, low-noise sensor available yet. If
they announce that they're working on full-frame, they will Osborne*
sales of the D2X*. OTOH, if they absolutely deny that they'll ever come
out with a full-frame camera, the pros will all simply abandon Nikon
and
move over to Canon. So the best option is for Nikon to do exactly what
their doing, leave the door open for full frame, but don't promise that
it will be available any time soon.


Pretty well reasoned, except the part where you claim that pros will
abandon
Nikon if they don't feel a ff sensor is forth coming. There are a lot
of
pros who could simply care less.

Yes, I should have been more specific as to which sort of pros actually
care about the benefits of larger sensors. It isn't so much full-frame,
as being able to offer low-noise at higher ISOs, and being able to come
out with professional lenses for the smaller sensors.

Even though larger pixels will always be lower noise, if all else is
equal, at some point it may be academic if the noise levels are low
enough. Nikon (or more accurately, Sony) isn't there yet.

It'll be interesting to see how the Cypress sensor in the Olympus E-330
fares. The early sensors from Fill-Factory (which Cypress took over)
were pretty bad.

Nikon has already lost all the early adopters that absolutely needed
low-noise and a full line of professional lenses. These are the most
profitable customers. If they come out with these products now, they'll
be selling to a much smaller TAM. So maybe it's better to just forget
it. Not every company can sell into all market segments. Still, it'd be
good for consumers if Canon had some competition at the high end.

I understand, you have to cut your losses at some point, but if Canon had
"just forgot it" 25 years ago, they wouldn't be market leader today.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

I understand, you have to cut your losses at some point, but if Canon had
"just forgot it" 25 years ago, they wouldn't be market leader today.

I read a case study of Canon in Harvard Business Review once, on how
they decided to leverage and expand their core competencies of optics,
micro-mechanics, and electronics, to become the leader in cameras,
photocopiers, and printers.

The investment in sensor technology would probably never have been made,
had they looked strictly at return on investment--they could have done
as most other companies did and rely on sensors from a supplier.

Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the
35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then.

SMS wrote:


Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the
35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then.


Nonsense. There was nothing to be "stunned" by.

For years from its introduction in 1987, the EOS system was a complete
joke. Pros had not the slightest interest in the EOS system because
it completely failed to address their needs. Canon merely wasted
their time, effort and money in developing successive mediocre
consumer grade EOS camera bodies and lenses.

That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the first EOS camera
that could be taken seriously for pro use. The EOS-1n began to earn
Canon respect among pros for the first time since the demise of the
outstanding Canon F-1. A wider range of L glass also helped.

That respect increased considerably in 2000 with the successor to the
1N, the EOS-1V. Together with the EOS 3, which was introduced in
1998, Canon at last had two pro SLR bodies in 2000 that could compete
on level terms with the Nikon F5 and F100.

But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a
real competitor, let alone to be "stunned".

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
SMS wrote:


Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the
35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then.


Nonsense. There was nothing to be "stunned" by.

For years from its introduction in 1987, the EOS system was a complete
joke. Pros had not the slightest interest in the EOS system because
it completely failed to address their needs. Canon merely wasted
their time, effort and money in developing successive mediocre
consumer grade EOS camera bodies and lenses.

That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the first EOS camera
that could be taken seriously for pro use. The EOS-1n began to earn
Canon respect among pros for the first time since the demise of the
outstanding Canon F-1. A wider range of L glass also helped.

That respect increased considerably in 2000 with the successor to the
1N, the EOS-1V. Together with the EOS 3, which was introduced in
1998, Canon at last had two pro SLR bodies in 2000 that could compete
on level terms with the Nikon F5 and F100.

But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a
real competitor, let alone to be "stunned".


"Years" would be accurately "two and a half years." (March, 1987, intro of
the 650 to Sept. 1989, intro of the EOS1.) The 1n was introduced in Nov.
1994, the 1v in March, 2000. Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Skip M" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .
SMS wrote:


Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the
35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then.


Nonsense. There was nothing to be "stunned" by.

For years from its introduction in 1987, the EOS system was a complete
joke. Pros had not the slightest interest in the EOS system because
it completely failed to address their needs. Canon merely wasted
their time, effort and money in developing successive mediocre
consumer grade EOS camera bodies and lenses.

That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the first EOS camera
that could be taken seriously for pro use. The EOS-1n began to earn
Canon respect among pros for the first time since the demise of the
outstanding Canon F-1. A wider range of L glass also helped.

That respect increased considerably in 2000 with the successor to the
1N, the EOS-1V. Together with the EOS 3, which was introduced in
1998, Canon at last had two pro SLR bodies in 2000 that could compete
on level terms with the Nikon F5 and F100.

But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a
real competitor, let alone to be "stunned".


"Years" would be accurately "two and a half years." (March, 1987, intro of
the 650 to Sept. 1989, intro of the EOS1.)

Pros didn't buy the EOS-1. It was regarded as a good first attempt,
but not anywhere near enough to tempt pros away from Nikon. The
EOS-1n was better, but the EOS-1V was the first EOS body that pros
took seriously, and that came in 2000.

I rest my case. Canon enthusiasts may with to spin it another way,
but that is how it really was.

Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.)

I already stated that, Skip.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Skip M" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
. ..
SMS wrote:


Nikon was stunned by the introduction of the EOS system, they'd had the
35mm pro market pretty much to themselves until then.


Nonsense. There was nothing to be "stunned" by.

For years from its introduction in 1987, the EOS system was a complete
joke. Pros had not the slightest interest in the EOS system because
it completely failed to address their needs. Canon merely wasted
their time, effort and money in developing successive mediocre
consumer grade EOS camera bodies and lenses.

The EOS-1n began to earn
Canon respect among pros for the first time since the demise of the
outstanding Canon F-1. A wider range of L glass also helped.

That respect increased considerably in 2000 with the successor to the
1N, the EOS-1V. Together with the EOS 3, which was introduced in
1998, Canon at last had two pro SLR bodies in 2000 that could compete
on level terms with the Nikon F5 and F100.

But from 1987 until 1998/2000, Nikon had no reason to see Canon as a
real competitor, let alone to be "stunned".


"Years" would be accurately "two and a half years." (March, 1987, intro
of
the 650 to Sept. 1989, intro of the EOS1.)

Pros didn't buy the EOS-1. It was regarded as a good first attempt,
but not anywhere near enough to tempt pros away from Nikon. The
EOS-1n was better, but the EOS-1V was the first EOS body that pros
took seriously, and that came in 2000.

You're the one who said, "That began to change with the EOS-1, which was the
first EOS camera that could be taken seriously for pro use." With the
advent of the EOS1, I think the biggest issue was lens availablity. Some of
the early lenses for the EF mount were lacking, sadly, in speed, focus
speed, despite internal motors, and build quality. The 1n was taken pretty
seriously, IIRC, focus was much better than it's predecessor, and built like
a tank. It was really the first AF camera to be taken seriously by pros,
the Nikons were still better MF than AF cameras, if reports were to be
believed.

I rest my case. Canon enthusiasts may with to spin it another way,
but that is how it really was.

I was just speaking for the sake of clarity.

Indeed, the 3 was introduced in 1998 (Nov.)

I already stated that, Skip.

I know, I was acknowledging that...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com