5 ms·

Long term, I think this is a good move for Nikon. Phones have eaten the DL's intended market, and at the DL's price there are already better options available i

Long term, I think this is a good move for Nikon. Phones have eaten the DL's intended market, and at the DL's price there are already better options available in the same form factor. Mirrorless is the future; if there was a mirrorless Nikon camera that could take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses, surely they'd be on to a winner

monksy 10y ago
Phones and DLs are apples and oranges. You can't get the same shots on a phone that you can on a DL.
- monk_e_boy 10y ago
  No but that shot on the DL has to be AMAZING compared to the phone. Otherwise people will just use their phones... another bit of equipment to worry about, to figure out how to crop a photo and upload it to facebook. It's too much effort for most people.
  - monksy 10y ago
    Right, however.. Most of those high-end cameras have Wifi on the device that can transfer to the phone. I would still argue that they're for different use cases.
    - dpark 10y ago
      Most people who care about taking really good photos are probably looking at DSLR or mirrorless. The DL line seems to occupy a middle ground that's neither convenient nor significantly better than a phone.
      - monk_e_boy 10y ago
        I picked up a 35mm rangefinder with a f1.7 lens for about £20 off ebay. You still can't get a digital camera that good for under £1,000. Digital is still a long way behind 1960s technology / price point
        rangibaby 10y ago
        I doubt that camera was $20 when it was new. Not ripping on old equipment (I am a vintage lens enthusiast) but it's I don't agree with your comparison.
- petepete 10y ago
  I agree. But that doesn't mean that modern phones aren't eating into the DL's market; a camera that takes decent enough pictures for Facebook and fits in your pocket.
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    >> But that doesn't mean that modern phones aren't eating into the DL's market; No more than any other camera. Most of the target buyers for the DL tend to be more serious photographers. The DL is on the high end of the point and shoot market, up there with Sony's RX100 series. The core market for the DL are SLR shooters who need a small camera that's better than a phone. Phones are fine for most stuff, but they're not particularly good with fast moving action or low light.
slantyyz 10y ago
>> Phones have eaten the DL's intended market Dunno about that, DL's were targeted for enthusiasts. Basically Sony RX100 buyers. >> if there was a mirrorless Nikon camera that could take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses There is a mirrorless Nikon camera that can take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses. It's called the Nikon 1 series.
- petepete 10y ago
  > There is a mirrorless Nikon camera that can take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses. It's called the Nikon 1 series. Ah, the all but dead Nikon 1 with a ~£200 adaptor.
  - slantyyz 10y ago
    It may be all but dead and a mockery to some purists, but the platform is still a pretty good one. Even now, it's still the mirrorless system that has AF tracking that comes closest to an SLR in terms of performance (if you take Thom Hogan at his word). They got a lot of stuff wrong in the early iterations (price, UI, handling), but the last iteration, the J5 was pretty darned good (basically an RX100MK3 with interchangeable lenses). I switched to the 1 series a few years ago from an APS dslr because I just wanted smaller gear, and I've been totally happy with absolutely no regrets. When I go on vacation, I bring two bodies and three lenses and they take up about as much room as one APS-C DSLR with a superzoom. Why two bodies? So I don't have to bother switching lenses like I had to when I had an SLR. I get that the platform isn't for everyone and I wouldn't recommend it to many people, but it's far from being the bad system that a lot of people make it out to be.
    - petepete 10y ago
      Ah, the only Nikon 1 series I've tried was the S1, I was quite impressed. Tiny, light, great pictures in good light. I can totally see why people like them; precisely the reason that people are now flocking to Fuji and Sony's systems. I have many Nikon lenses, if I could use them with a mirrorless body (Dx or Fx), I'd buy it in an instant. I'd probably take it and my 35mm f1.8 with me everywhere.
rangibaby 10y ago
D3xxx D5xxx → DX mirrorless D7xxx D5xx → "pro" DX D6xx,D7xx,D8xx → Some kind of consolidation here Dx → "Medium format"
luckydude 10y ago
My kid said that too. I bought him a mirrorless camera, pretty decent one, about $2K with a 18-55 (18-50?) and an 18-200. He used it for a while and then then stopped, he uses a full frame Canon body (5DIII) instead. I really really don't get the appeal of mirrorless. Yeah, it's smaller if you are out in bright daylight and you have an f5.6 lens. Not so much if you have a f1.4, 1.8, 2 lens, those have to be big to let in the light. So you have a big fat lens on a slightly smaller body and you give up an optical viewfinder. I shoot sports. Mirrorless is a joke in bad taste for sports. You are forced to do burst because you can't time your shots and now your workflow sucks because you are deleting 98% of your shots. My keeper rate with a 5DIII or a 1DX is 60-80% if I do my part, which I usually do.

monksy 10y ago

Phones and DLs are apples and oranges. You can't get the same shots on a phone that you can on a DL.

monk_e_boy 10y ago
No but that shot on the DL has to be AMAZING compared to the phone. Otherwise people will just use their phones... another bit of equipment to worry about, to figure out how to crop a photo and upload it to facebook. It's too much effort for most people.
- monksy 10y ago
  Right, however.. Most of those high-end cameras have Wifi on the device that can transfer to the phone. I would still argue that they're for different use cases.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Most people who care about taking really good photos are probably looking at DSLR or mirrorless. The DL line seems to occupy a middle ground that's neither convenient nor significantly better than a phone.
    - monk_e_boy 10y ago
      I picked up a 35mm rangefinder with a f1.7 lens for about £20 off ebay. You still can't get a digital camera that good for under £1,000. Digital is still a long way behind 1960s technology / price point
      - rangibaby 10y ago
        I doubt that camera was $20 when it was new. Not ripping on old equipment (I am a vintage lens enthusiast) but it's I don't agree with your comparison.
petepete 10y ago
I agree. But that doesn't mean that modern phones aren't eating into the DL's market; a camera that takes decent enough pictures for Facebook and fits in your pocket.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  >> But that doesn't mean that modern phones aren't eating into the DL's market; No more than any other camera. Most of the target buyers for the DL tend to be more serious photographers. The DL is on the high end of the point and shoot market, up there with Sony's RX100 series. The core market for the DL are SLR shooters who need a small camera that's better than a phone. Phones are fine for most stuff, but they're not particularly good with fast moving action or low light.

slantyyz 10y ago

>> Phones have eaten the DL's intended market Dunno about that, DL's were targeted for enthusiasts. Basically Sony RX100 buyers. >> if there was a mirrorless Nikon camera that could take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses There is a mirrorless Nikon camera that can take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses. It's called the Nikon 1 series.

petepete 10y ago
> There is a mirrorless Nikon camera that can take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses. It's called the Nikon 1 series. Ah, the all but dead Nikon 1 with a ~£200 adaptor.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  It may be all but dead and a mockery to some purists, but the platform is still a pretty good one. Even now, it's still the mirrorless system that has AF tracking that comes closest to an SLR in terms of performance (if you take Thom Hogan at his word). They got a lot of stuff wrong in the early iterations (price, UI, handling), but the last iteration, the J5 was pretty darned good (basically an RX100MK3 with interchangeable lenses). I switched to the 1 series a few years ago from an APS dslr because I just wanted smaller gear, and I've been totally happy with absolutely no regrets. When I go on vacation, I bring two bodies and three lenses and they take up about as much room as one APS-C DSLR with a superzoom. Why two bodies? So I don't have to bother switching lenses like I had to when I had an SLR. I get that the platform isn't for everyone and I wouldn't recommend it to many people, but it's far from being the bad system that a lot of people make it out to be.
  - petepete 10y ago
    Ah, the only Nikon 1 series I've tried was the S1, I was quite impressed. Tiny, light, great pictures in good light. I can totally see why people like them; precisely the reason that people are now flocking to Fuji and Sony's systems. I have many Nikon lenses, if I could use them with a mirrorless body (Dx or Fx), I'd buy it in an instant. I'd probably take it and my 35mm f1.8 with me everywhere.

rangibaby 10y ago

D3xxx D5xxx → DX mirrorless D7xxx D5xx → "pro" DX D6xx,D7xx,D8xx → Some kind of consolidation here Dx → "Medium format"

luckydude 10y ago

My kid said that too. I bought him a mirrorless camera, pretty decent one, about $2K with a 18-55 (18-50?) and an 18-200. He used it for a while and then then stopped, he uses a full frame Canon body (5DIII) instead. I really really don't get the appeal of mirrorless. Yeah, it's smaller if you are out in bright daylight and you have an f5.6 lens. Not so much if you have a f1.4, 1.8, 2 lens, those have to be big to let in the light. So you have a big fat lens on a slightly smaller body and you give up an optical viewfinder. I shoot sports. Mirrorless is a joke in bad taste for sports. You are forced to do burst because you can't time your shots and now your workflow sucks because you are deleting 98% of your shots. My keeper rate with a 5DIII or a 1DX is 60-80% if I do my part, which I usually do.