Dear Nikon...

[Andrew Reid]

So now we have the truth of the way manufacturers think about DSLR video.

It's a distraction!

Clearly the purist section of the photography industry wants to take us back to the stone age. Video quality has been very low down the list of priorities at Canon and Nikon over the years. And Olympus, and Fuji.

Now, even fashion accessories are prioritised above video capture as the Nikon Df dispenses with it altogether!

Read the full article here

[semartin]

Still shooters have been screaming for a still only cam for years — now they can pony up for one. : )

[Rob Bannister]

EXACTLY!!! Im a nikon user and own the XE-1 from Fuji. It took me months to get them to respond to issues in their video cameras. 

 

Here is a video showing just how bad the XE-1's auto exposure and auto WB in video is.

https://vimeo.com/76306732

 

Im also an Nikon NPS member because of using their cameras to capture plates and shooting on set which made me think that they would respect video users a bit more....nope. I have no interest in this camera at all. I bought a D4 and could not justify the price for crappy video so I sold it and got a d800...its aok but now im looking at the kineraw mini or 5D with ML.

 

I may also sell my fuji even though I like it the a7r at least has decent video. These are tools to me, i dont even think of them as cameras really just a way to capture images and video to use later...if you cripple your cameras I'll leave for something else. Im not married to your brand any more.

[leo]

Stills gear sells a whole lot better than video gear, I asked Nikon about the aperture problem a few years ago and the reply was they aim towards photography and video is not in their plans.

I wonder what will canon do with future canon Mark 4-5.. when 4k will be the new standard, it's bad already the image is soft as hell compared to pro camcorders and some mirrorless like gh2 and 3.

[Julian]

Still shooters have been screaming for a still only cam for years — now they can pony up for one. : )

 

This. Smart move by Nikon to leave the movie mode out. The amount of photographers crying with happiness over the lack of movie mode is astounding.

 

The Canon photographers on the other side are crying a 1000 tears over the fact that Nikon does pay attention to the photographer, instead of Canon who only cares for the movie makers (yes... that's what they think, it's more like Canon doesn't really care about anyone or anything).

 

This camera is bullshit anyway, yes, it has appeal.... ohhh the looks, ahhh the buttons! But what is wrong with the ergonomics of a D800? What is the point of selecting your shutter speed (limited to full stops) with a huge wheel, that you first have to unlock... Form over fuction.

[maxotics]

Reviewing that camera, is beneath you, Andrew ;)

 

Anyway, any camera company that doesn't care if you have dust on your sensor because your shutter mechanism is literally flying apart isn't going to care about knobs that don't work--as if the buyer of that camera would ever turn them past Autol!

 

(I have a D600, which I love as a stills camera, so no one flame me!)

[epyonxero]

Not every camera needs to shoot video. Especially if its a half-assed video mode thats only there because everyone else has one. I shoot 90% stills and 10% video and that 10% has grown a lot since I discovered Magic Lantern Raw for my 5D3. I dont clam to be any expert in video but before ML Raw I was always disappointed by the lack of quality in DSLR and most mirrorless video when compared to the stills from the same cameras.

 

My point is kudos to Nikon for building a tool that does one thing and (presumably) does it well.

[Germy1979]

It's been 5 years since the Mark 2 came out, & it's hard to believe we don't have anything that out of the box is a REAL hybrid yet.

By real I'm talking has the stills chops of a 1DX or a D4 and a serious ass video mode that isn't 8-bit. ML raw is amazing if you don't mind the media cost, but I'd be happy with a Prores mode like the Bmcc has. If the pocket cam can do it on an SD card, there should be no problem for a DSLR. I always thought the character and creaminess of the Mark 2 video image was just gorgeous if they could just fix it's issues with artifacts and lowlight. The 1DX looks like the one that actually did it, (considering how muddy the Mark 3 is) -but it's still 8-bit....and so is the 1DC.

Basically I'm saying a Canon 1DX with a 10-bit prores 422 codec would be a step in the right direction, lol.

[Steve Nunez]

While I personally love this camera, I like all the analog dials etc......at $3000 I won't be buying one....just too pricey for me. I don't mind them omitting video but I think more would "consider" it if it had!

Nikon has (had) the perfect opportunity to include killer video in their DSLR's as they don't make video camcorders or pro video equipment and could have taken Panasonic's approach to killer video specs in their DSLR's, they've chosen not to......sad really as their name would have drawn many to them. Nikon has no "pro" market segment in their lineup to canabalize or jeopardize it's higher-end offerings, perfect opportunity to offer the best they could have and create a new user base of video enthusiasts.

I'm surprised they don't see it like this.....I thought the bottom line was profits and I just don't see why they've chosen not to offer their best video specs on their DSLR cameras......lens sales would have spiked etc.

The D5200 has really good video, they are capable of producing awesome video DSLR's.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Here is the issue. If they continue to use Sony sensors, Sony is going to make them pay to have Video features (because that's a big market for Sony). So it's not just about demand differentiation, it's about supply cost differentiation too.

[cantsin]

My favorite photo camera is still the (analog) Nikon FM2 because it is so simple, straightforward, robust and snappy. There is still no digital camera with which I can shoot as fast and as easily, especially in manual mode. 

 

In my book, the Nikon Df combines the worst of analog and digital - a cluttered interface typical for modern DSLR forced into a pseudo film-DSLR housing.

 

What Nikon should have done, IMHO, is bring back the simplicity of a camera like the FM2 (rather than something that vaguely resembles its looks):

- Skip JPEG, only shoot RAW. These days, no serious photographer needs JPEG except news shooters who need fast turnaround times - and who won't buy this camera anyway. Eliminating JPEG will also eliminate most camera menu items - white balance, compression quality, "active d-lighting", picture styles, color space, etc.

- Get rid of the mode dial, but have three dials on top of the camera: (1) shutter speed, in the classical increments + one "A" setting; (2) ISO, in classical increments + one "A" setting, (3) aperture [for all lenses without aperture ring + one "A" setting. This would be enough to control the camera for all purposes.

- Get rid of the camera menu, and the menu button, altogether. (Formatting cards could simply be done via a dialogue popping up whenever a card is newly being inserted, and confirmation via the shutter button.) 

- Provide a split-prism viewfinder for quick and precise manual focusing.

- Eliminate shutter lag.

- Use the more robust CF cards instead of SD cards.

- Power the camera with standard (rechargeable) AA batteries instead of a proprietary battery.

- Provide a classical cable release thread in the shutter button.

- Make the camera all-metal.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a pure photo camera, but the Nikon Rf isn't it. I also think that DSLR video is dead now, with nothing to be expected by the mainstream camera manufacturers except maybe Panasonic. (Whose GH series is the only large sensor interchangeable lens camera that has ever been officially developed and marketed as a truly hybrid stills and video camera.) 

[wolf33d]

Great post Andrew, I agree 100% with all your points. 

So pissed about how brands are doing not well with video !!!

Unbelivieable that in 2013 we still don't have a Good still/video camera in a compact body ! Like a OLY EM-1 with good video (Prores,60fps..) or A7R with stabilisation + Prores and full read out pixel ...

Pissed pissed pissed.

[Guy Calaf]

quite a strange move, indeed about fashion, and not about content. I'm a still photographer and a filmmaker. If I think of a statement camera, I'm definitely not going to look into a camera that does exactly what a contemporary dslr does, lacks features, and costs more money just cause it looks like an slr from 30 years ago. makes no sense to me. I don't think people will respond well to it. Professionals who can afford the price tag will prefer more functionality, video indeed. Even with C300, C100 and bmpcc in our production, we still use 5DIII bodies for video when we need them. And you always need backups anyway in case a camera goes down.

 

If I want a fashionable overpriced tool that I don't need I'll buy a Leica M.  Why buy an old looking Nikon that does less than a normal looking Nikon for double the money? 

[Oliver Daniel]

I don't understand this post.

DSLRs are for photographers. They are made for stills and not video. It's just so happens that we have adopted it as a filmmaking tool.

If you are a serious filmmaker, Canon want you to buy the Cinema EOS Line. Nikon aren't interested. Fuji, erm... No need to bother. Panasonic...they have plans and want you to buy into their M43 system. They get punters in with the GH line, to then offer video based models later. ;)

So what if Nikon haven't bothered with a video feature in this camera, who cares?

Technically, hobbyists don't need professional features. Professionals need professional features and therefore buy professional cameras.

Blackmagic cameras are for pros and lack many pro features. Canon etc, I expect, don't care. It's very niche.

I'm not sure why ML RAW comes into this in any way at all. The effect this has on the market is literally nothing. It's a hack. It's not a feature of the camera. ML RAW is a discovery, it's not a market leading feature.

The annoying fact for most is that if you want a camera with better features, you need to get shooting and earn some money. If it's just a hobby, then why would the camera manufacturers screw their business models by giving top features to people who just want to point and shoot? It doesn't make any sense.

There is a feeling that manufacturers (Canon especially) are not putting in the juice they could even into their pro cameras. This is true, and it happens because they are a business who want to make a profit.

I don't think the camera companies are out of touch. This forum is out of touch. The camera companies believe they are catering for you, and as we are all buying their cameras, they are. ;)

[Germy1979]

It would be hilarious if this was part of Nikon adopting a "C" line... Just sayin.. Lol

"November 3rd 2014. Leave no story untold.... not one."

[Ergo Zjeci]

so much money for this ugly sh... and not doin video ??? fcuk that!!!

 

Sorry for my language!!!

 

i will never buy a NIKON!!!! NEVER!!!

[Matt White]

I have been waiting for several years to buy the right camera. No one is making it yet. In the meantime, I rent.

 

I have talked to manufacturers. They have tunnel vision. 

 

If one of them gets brave enough to do it, they could make the camera most of us have been waiting for, and find a "whole new market" (one we have been telling them about for some now): and sell a lot of cameras.

 

I do not think Canon, Nikon, Fuji, will be the brave one to do it, nor do I think they care at all about articles like Andrew's. I appreciate the effort, Andrew. Write one to the companies who might actually care!

[nathanleebush]

All this stuff about DSLRs being crap ergonomically for video is silly. The EPIC, Alexa, Blackmagic and pretty much everything in between are essentially boxes that are brains designed to be rigged up. The only thing ergonomically designed for video are run and gun small sensor doc cams with IS built in. Large sensor cinema cameras must be rigged up, as must DSLRs. 

 

Also, the ergonomic ease of changing settings on a DSLR is much more intuitive even when on the rig when compared to the side panel menu you'd find on an Alexa or certainly anything from Blackmagic.

 

The Canon Cinema EOS series, as much as it pains me to praise them, have to their credit the only cinema cameras designed for run and gun with well placed control dials.

 

DSLRs have powerful processors on board, and are great hybrid tools for filmmakers, if the companies would just unleash their capabilities. Magic Lantern has shown what DSLRs are actually capable of. 

 

The annoying part is Nikon, Fujifilm and Olympus don't have any video divisions to protect – a significant advantage over Sony and Canon –so they could clean up by investing in disruptive video specs like Blackmagic have.

 

I had a similar conversation with an Olympus rep as you had with a Fuji rep, Andrew, who just looked blankly back when I asked how they could continue to ignore 24p. Sony, from the reps I've talked to, seems a bit more receptive and at least understands the problem, but they are not about to step on the toes of the video division. At Photoplus this year the stand hawking the complete $24k 4K FS700 "solution" was 20 feet from the demo area with the $1700 A7. A fitting visual metaphor for the situation! 

[tehgeek]

I don't understand this post.

DSLRs are for photographers. They are made for stills and not video. It's just so happens that we have adopted it as a filmmaking tool.

If you are a serious filmmaker, Canon want you to buy the Cinema EOS Line. Nikon aren't interested. Fuji, erm... No need to bother. Panasonic...they have plans and want you to buy into their M43 system. They get punters in with the GH line, to then offer video based models later. ;)

So what if Nikon haven't bothered with a video feature in this camera, who cares?

Technically, hobbyists don't need professional features. Professionals need professional features and therefore buy professional cameras.

Blackmagic cameras are for pros and lack many pro features. Canon etc, I expect, don't care. It's very niche.

I'm not sure why ML RAW comes into this in any way at all. The effect this has on the market is literally nothing. It's a hack. It's not a feature of the camera. ML RAW is a discovery, it's not a market leading feature.

The annoying fact for most is that if you want a camera with better features, you need to get shooting and earn some money. If it's just a hobby, then why would the camera manufacturers screw their business models by giving top features to people who just want to point and shoot? It doesn't make any sense.

There is a feeling that manufacturers (Canon especially) are not putting in the juice they could even into their pro cameras. This is true, and it happens because they are a business who want to make a profit.

I don't think the camera companies are out of touch. This forum is out of touch. The camera companies believe they are catering for you, and as we are all buying their cameras, they are. ;)

 

Very well said. I wonder what the percentage of DSLR owners actually use video regularly. I can't see it being over 10%. We are a very small market and we are lucky to have what we have.

[cantsin]

People, you're all overestimating the DSLR video market. It's marginal, and has become more so recently. The 2009-2012 video DSLR hype is over. For pros and semipros, there are now better video cameras with large sensors and interchangeable lenses. Amateurs of the kind that ceaselessly filmed "test videos" of flowers in shallow DoF seem to have moved on to other toys (GoPros?). 

 

No DSLR or mirrorless manufacturer will sell a lot of cameras because of video. Even in their heydays, cameras like the GH1/2/3 were rarely stocked by camera and consumer electronics stores because they catered to a too specialist market niche. Shooting and editing video is still relatively complex compared to shooting stills, no matter with which technology. At any time, amateur moving images have been a niche market compared to photography, whether on small gauge film, analog or digital video. Arguably, they were much more popular in the 1970s with Super 8 home movies than any time later.

 

Today, probably 99% of amateur video is cell phone video uploaded to social media. Even smartphone video editing apps aren't used that much. And how many amateurs, prosumers, semi-pros and DIY filmmakers worldwide are users of Final Cut, Premiere, Vegas or Avid? Those are the people who constitute the whole market for cameras that sit in between point-and-shoot camcorders and digital cinema cameras.

 

To take another example: Vimeo, more or less the Internet platform for DIY/prosumer filmmaking, has 14 Million user accounts. If we factor in inactive accounts on the one hand and DIY filmmakers without Vimeo accounts on the other, and also consider that roughly half of the active Vimeo contributors use either lower or higher end cameras, then 14 Million users likely represent the maximum number of worldwide DSLR/mirrorless video shooters. (Frankly, I think that the number is much smaller if activity on related web forums and social media is any good indicator.) If each of them buys a new camera every two years, then 7 million cameras would be sold to this target group per year. That's a mere 6% of worldwide digital camera sales, still based on a very optimistic guess of the user demographic. In other words: better video features aren't relevant for at least 94% of camera buyers. And thus hardly relevant for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, given their total volume of sales.