Nikon regresses in the low end, leaving one to wonder about their situation

On 19/08/2016 16:12, PeterN wrote:
On 8/19/2016 9:53 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 19/08/2016 13:48, PeterN wrote:
[]
Some high priced professional photographers have expressed concern that
they could not charge as much if they show up with light weight cameras
that look like toys to a layman customer. I am offering a suggestion
that concerns in that market may be factors.

I would have thought that at the bottom end of the market, the customer
may have heard of Canon and Nikon, and when similarly-priced (in the UK)
offerings are compared, the Canon appears to win hands-down. Or an I
missing something?


I should have been more specific. I was referring only to the mirrorless
camera issue

Oh, I can quite see that, although I would have thought that the silent
operation offered by some cameras would have enabled pro photogs to get
candid shots (e.g. at events). I do worry for Nikon (and Canon?) as a
company, though, with their reluctance to get into mirrorless, but I can
see that staying at the luxury or professional end of the market may be
less volatile than elsewhere.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 8/19/2016 12:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-08-19 15:12:16 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/19/2016 9:53 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 19/08/2016 13:48, PeterN wrote:
[]
Some high priced professional photographers have expressed concern that
they could not charge as much if they show up with light weight cameras
that look like toys to a layman customer. I am offering a suggestion
that concerns in that market may be factors.

I would have thought that at the bottom end of the market, the customer
may have heard of Canon and Nikon, and when similarly-priced (in the UK)
offerings are compared, the Canon appears to win hands-down. Or an I
missing something?


I should have been more specific. I was referring only to the
mirrorless camera issue

There are quite a large number of wedding photographers who have moved
from DSLR systems to the Fujifilm X series, particularly the X-Pro2 and
X-T2, largely because of the silence of an electronic shutter, and very
good IQ. There is the added bonus of a lighter load and a few other
features.
My disclaimer; as you know I am a Nikon DSLR shooter who has had his
photography enthusiasm revived by my exposure to the Fujifim X cameras.

http://www.fujiholics.com/blog/6w6zagrmtwwzejlyxz57zcdbegswlk
https://fujifilm-blog.com/2016/07/20/10773/
http://www.thewanderinglensman.com/2016/07/the-fujifilm-triador-is-it-quadrad.html



True. There are cafeterias, fast food joints, gourmet restaurants and
everything in between, all at different price levels. What I am
suggesting is a marketing concept, based upon perception.



--
PeterN

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:09:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote in
2016081817094455539-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

I perfected my sensor wet cleaning skills with my dust magnet D70. I had
to clean that sensor several times a week depending on the number of
lens changes I made on a particular shoot.

The owners of D3*00s have probably hotglued an 18-135mm or something lense
on their gadgets and will thus not miss the feature!

--
teleportation kills

On 22/08/2016 10:10, Whisky-dave wrote:
[]
What sort of events, I doubt a slilent camera would be at great advantage at the Olympic or many sports arenas maybe in a library.

Tennis, chess, snooker, concerts, churches, museums etc.

I have the mirroless canon EOS M3 and it isn't silent it might not have a mirror but when teh sensor moves up and down it makes anoise just like a mirro flapping. If I want silent running I use video, which is where 4K is useful for stills if you have it.

Now if you could lock the mirror/sensor up for silent running that would be a good idea but that would require a differnt appoach to focus and exposure control I guess.

My GX7 offers an electronic shutter mode, which is completely noiseless
(at least, it is noiseless to my hearing).

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

What sort of events, I doubt a slilent camera would be at great advantage
at the Olympic or many sports arenas maybe in a library.

Tennis, chess, snooker, concerts, churches, museums etc.

tennis?? if you think tennis players can even hear a camera (or care if
they could), you're crazy.

wedding photographers have been using 'noisy slrs' in churches for
decades. nobody gives a **** there either.

museums don't care unless they ban all cameras, in which case a silent
camera won't help.

On 8/22/2016 11:00 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , David Taylor
wrote:

What sort of events, I doubt a slilent camera would be at great advantage
at the Olympic or many sports arenas maybe in a library.

Tennis, chess, snooker, concerts, churches, museums etc.

tennis?? if you think tennis players can even hear a camera (or care if
they could), you're crazy.

wedding photographers have been using 'noisy slrs' in churches for
decades. nobody gives a **** there either.

museums don't care unless they ban all cameras, in which case a silent
camera won't help.


My guess is that you have never taken a serious interest in any of those
sports. An unexpected sharp noise can cause a distraction. Not for
everyone, but yes for some.
--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

What sort of events, I doubt a slilent camera would be at great advantage
at the Olympic or many sports arenas maybe in a library.

Tennis, chess, snooker, concerts, churches, museums etc.

tennis?? if you think tennis players can even hear a camera (or care if
they could), you're crazy.

wedding photographers have been using 'noisy slrs' in churches for
decades. nobody gives a **** there either.

museums don't care unless they ban all cameras, in which case a silent
camera won't help.

My guess is that you have never taken a serious interest in any of those
sports. An unexpected sharp noise can cause a distraction. Not for
everyone, but yes for some.

as usual, you guess wrong.

there are public tennis courts near where i live, just off a busy
street where trucks frequently pass. a camera is the least of the
distractions.

'noisy slrs' have been used at professional tennis tournaments for
*years*.

On 22/08/2016 15:42, Whisky-dave wrote:
[]
My GX7 offers an electronic shutter mode,

but it's not a mirroless camera and I don;t see it as a pro level camera either.

I can't find any mirror in it! Enlighten me!

The thread is entitled "low-end". I might venture to suggest than any
camera can be a "pro" camera when it's in the hands of a "pro".

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

What sort of events, I doubt a slilent camera would be at great
advantage
at the Olympic or many sports arenas maybe in a library.

Tennis, chess, snooker, concerts, churches, museums etc.

tennis?? if you think tennis players can even hear a camera (or care if
they could), you're crazy.

wedding photographers have been using 'noisy slrs' in churches for
decades. nobody gives a **** there either.

museums don't care unless they ban all cameras, in which case a silent
camera won't help.

My guess is that you have never taken a serious interest in any of those
sports. An unexpected sharp noise can cause a distraction. Not for
everyone, but yes for some.

So how have they taken pictures in the past before electronic camera.
Such as when Britain last one wimbodon before Andy Murry ?

and you're hardly very close the the player at these sporting events,and they
rarely ban cameras because of noise it';s usually security or because the
light not the sound can damage delicate colours in painting and fabrics,
although I've usualy found it to be so they can sel their own pictures and postcards.

yep.

museums often prohibit *flash* photography, not noisy cameras, or
cameras are banned outright to force you to buy 'official' photos,
which is often done at concerts.

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

My GX7 offers an electronic shutter mode,

but it's not a mirroless camera and I don;t see it as a pro level camera
either.

I can't find any mirror in it! Enlighten me!

The thread is entitled "low-end". I might venture to suggest than any
camera can be a "pro" camera when it's in the hands of a "pro".

up to the limitations of the camera.

pros can justify high end cameras because there are fewer limitations
which lets them get better shots than they otherwise could have.