Live data from Hacker News

Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

mirrorlessrumors.com

231–240 of 371 posts

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#231
post #41

Oof, that's not a good sign. For me, Japan is the place for the best camera and lens manufacturing. Most of the makers seem to split their manufacturing between Japan for their quality models/lenses and cheaper countries for the consumer stuff, which I think is a valid compromise. But this feels short-sighted on Nikon's part and rather like they have already failed. Perhaps instead of relocating their production they…

I switched from Nikon to Panasonic as well aflet my grip liquified and Nikon service said it's a consumable and not covered by warranty. Panasonic make smaller and lighter cameras, smaller and ligher glass, sometimes better glass due to the fact that aspherical elements are smaller and easier to manufacture, has interoperability with Olympus lenses and also ability to use Leica M43 lenses.

Well, comparing m43 cameras with full frame is like comparing Phase 645 sensor with FF cameras. M43 cameras are really nice and lightweight but have their own limitations.

All the Leica m43 glass are so called Pana-Leica glass: Panasonic designed and manufactured but Leica rubber stamped. They still are really nice glass, though :)

Disclaimer: used Olympus 4/3 and m43 for reaally long time but the mirrorless full frame gear feels so much better in the closely same sized package.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#232
post #192

Apple could obliterate the pro video and DSLR market with all it has learned about sensors and image processing in the past decade. It would only need to release a pro body like Red, Black Magic, etc, supporting different mounts (Nikon F, etc) and an integrated workflow with Final Cut. It has already done that for the consumer market and part of the enthusiast market... My guess as to why Apple hasn't done it yet is…

I’d love to have a pro camera that has a high-speed connection to an iOS device, with an extensive API for programmability.

But I don’t think Apple would do it, because it’s such an ecosystem to build out. Lenses, flashes, adapters, it’s all so much. It’s Nikon’s core business to build such an ecosystem, and they’re not great at it. Never did get a fully fleshed-out set of DX lenses.

Here’s my pipe dream: Apple transitions all iOS devices to USB-C, they cook up a low-latency fast protocol to connect to cameras, and they give the camera manufacturers documentation and support to build out a way to use an interchangeable lens camera that immediately lets you pipe photos and video off the camera into iOS apps for immediate processing and offloading.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#234
post #3
post #2

Bythom seems to indicate nikon is fine. Hence it is not about survival but long term viability. But leaving japan totally behind ... does not make sense from Japanese industrial point of view. Is this real?

It's a race to the bottom...

The race is over, much like in CPU design. It's the end of the road and without the drastic fast improvements of the past merely being mediocre in production quality is enough to keep up.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.

> the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter Is it brighter for the same camera body, aperture and depth of field? If so, what would one look for in a lens's specifications to describe this difference?

In the above example (consumer 70-300 [often f4.0-5.6], vs pro 70-200 [usually f2.8]), when these lenses are placed on the same cameras, the pro 70-200 will give 4x the light compared to f5.6, or 2x the light compared with f4.0 (consumer zooms are often variable aperture, while pro lenses are more frequently constant aperture). If you were to compare the pro lens on some camera, and the consumer lens on some different sized sensor, the math can get more complicated. Below is an explanation of what f-stops mean, if you're interested.

the maximum f-stop of the lens describes the ratio of sensor length (1D, diagonally is best comparison probably), to the diameter of lens aperture. because the opening and sensor are two dimensional, every sqrt(2) increase in f-stop describes halving the light. for example, a f 1.4 lens can allow ~twice as much light as an f 2.0 lens. Every doubling of light is considered a "stop", like {1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0}. An important consideration is that this number describes a ratio, not the absolute opening in the lens without respect to sensor size.

One possible conversion method is to consider the sensor size of the system against some popular standard. For example, "aps-c" sized sensors are about 1 stop "slower" than full frame sensors, due to being 1/(2.25) the size of full frame sensors in area, or 1/(1.5) linearly. This means that many lenses can be converted not only on focal length, but also for f-stop, to estimate the total light gathering power of the system, and the output "look" of the image. Full frame sensors (~36mm x 24mm) are most frequently used in the photography world as a standard comparison point. For example, a 50mm 1.4 lens gives 50mm 1.4 on full frame, but that same lens on an aps-c sensor (like a fuji X, sony 6xxx, canon 7d, etc.) would not only give a cropped 75mm [full frame] focal length equivalence, it would also give the depth of field of a 75mm _2.0_ lens [on full frame], not 75mm 1.4. At the same time, the exposure would still benefit from the light gathered at f1.4. This is why many say that smaller sensors give a larger depth of field (more in focus, less out of focus background). In reality, this is due to the lens aperture being measured only as a ratio to the sensor size. Finally, the smaller aps-c sensor will give a larger depth of field at the same f stop, but may also give higher noise at the same ISO (to a similarly advanced full frame sensor). This means that an aps-c camera takes the exact same image when it has ~1 more f stop, ~33% less focal length, ~1 stop lower ISO to the full frame system. A big confusion around any of this "equivalence" discussion is that sometimes people mean equivalence for lens "look", and other times, they mean equivalence for exposure, while others may be talking about absolute image quality and noise. They're actually all related, though much of this discussion isn't important to real world photography.

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a b…

I wonder how many photographers were put off by the cost & weight of a 800mm lens, and how many just didn't actually need a 800mm lens? The only time I can remember wanting > 200mm was back when I did sports photography.

Wildlife & nature, architecture, astronomy, any scene that you want to "flatten"...

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaves OSS out of all their lenses. That's what they do. Annoys me that the best fast prime for my sony A6100 (sigma f1.4s) won't work for video because of this. I'm stuck with the far shittier sony f1.8s...

OSS is.... ?

OIS (optical image stabilization) mistyped or "branded".

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#238
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't used a sigma lense for years. Are they now comparable quality to NIkon/Canon lenses?

I have a Sigma 150-600mm Sport, which is a hell of a lens, both in quality/features and uh...weight :D It's totally hand-holdable, but reviews online make me wonder if everyone else has pipe cleaners for arms; it took a couple of weeks to get used to it but I don't have any trouble now. The image quality is fantastic and extremely competitive. The image-stabilisation works superbly, and the autofocus is very good - m…

Thanks, your photos are great.

I'd like to get myself a long lense for those kinds of shots but I really can't afford Nikon prices!

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a b…

I think you’re about 2 or 3 years too late with this comment. The switch to mirrorless is already here, Nikon and Canon have the majority of their core lens lineups out already for these platforms so it’s unlikely they’d replace them again for the next decade or longer. And yes, they are mostly better than previous generations across the board. Which is pretty cool, that something based on such a simple idea that’s b…

What is the deal with mirrorless? (no mirror, but why does this improve optics?)

Re: Nikon Is ending 70 years of camera production in Japan

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect another aspect to it is that camera manufacturers didn't even really want to go digital at all. They had a nice revenue stream in the form of "selling rolls of film" that would have kept them happy indefinitely. It isn't easy to obsolete your main lifeline.

If I’m not mistaken Canon, Nikon, etc. only ever sold camera’s, not film. And photographers changed camera’s a lot less often in the analogue days. With digital the customers suddenly got on an upgrade schedule similar to that of computers. So from a commercial standpoint the move to digital must have been pretty attractive for the manufacturers.

Not only that, but the Big Three in film (Kodak, Fuji and AGFA) were at the forefront of digital photography when it was still barely a thing. Of them, only Fuji was making "serious" cameras for general photography (medium format rangefinders and the studio beast GX680, along with Fujinon optics for large format and enlargers).
Post reply on HN