I find several of Thom's fundamental positions very compelling/reasonable:
- Nikon's legacy was/is lenses. They have relaxed far too much when it comes to providing competitive lenses that are in high demand, and it has cost them customers/market share.
- Zoom lenses are an important part of the consumer-demanded missing lenses (and the initial lenses for a new consumer mirrorless format). Personally I don't use zooms much anymore. I have one general purpose zoom left, a 12-40mm for my Olympus but that's it... I'm pretty much a prime guy at this point. And to answer your question, no I don't like changing lenses but I'm also uncompromising and avoid most zooms too. But I understand that affordable zooms are very important to the consumer sector, and that is what allows the enthusiast/pro sector to exist... Thom is especially aware of this, which is why he pays attention to the zooms and he even agonizes over the wide end of a superzoom.
- Other telephotos may be more important than the uber-expensive ones (like the long-anticipated 300 f2.8E FL). All he is saying is that he knows Nikon will eventually roll out the upgrade to the 300 2.8, but I'll bet the new price on that baby will be ~$9K+... I'm totally with him on this point. And hopefully Nikon is understanding this too considering the recent more affordable 300 PF and 200-500 f/5.6 options, as well as those recent patents for f/5.6 PF super telephotos (personally I would be most interested in 600 f/5.6 PF).
- Nikon needs to introduce a lot of lenses in the next few years, and they also need to break with their past behavior and boldly reveal a lens road map. That would be so refreshing. I am very tired of Nikon's secrecy. Explaining it as part of a competitive war with Canon just doesn't fly for me anymore. IMO, Nikon lost that war. They are now in a situation where they really must be a little more transparent and direct with me, at least if they want to win back a little more of my loyalty,...
I also agree with his opinion that Nikon probably should let the CX Nikon 1 system remain dead. It makes sense to me considering the current overall situation for Nikon. Nikon really has made several critical management mistakes in recent years, and the way Nikon 1 was handled is only part of that. If CX were to be resurrected it would only compete against their own internal resources to (a) successfully sustain the DSLR line while (b) introducing brand-new DX/FX mirrorless. I mean be honest, don't you have a hard time imagining Nikon doing all 3 and succeeding with both (a) and (b) and also (c) resurrecting CX? I do, but just my $0.02.
Dave
Thanks for the input and interesting discussion, Dave.
While we chat about this and that on this thread (and Thom looks on for his next insight!
:-O , Canon has been busy lifting the Mirrorless bar, and stealing Nikon's thunder (and potential customers) .....
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m50
I'm going to agree with you (and Thom) on some things, and probably disagree on a few more.
** It's true that Nikon's (and Canon's too) vast lens catalogue is a key competitive advantage - here and now (with a few glaring gaps as I have mentioned before). However, that very same catalogue is also somewhat of a liability too. To whit:
1. Not all of these lenses are capable of the high resolutions necessary going forward.
2. Many need refreshing to remain market leading in performance, or parameters such as size/ weight etc.
3. They are very much a product of the past, or the present at best. Electronic ones will be suitable for use with Mirrorless via suitable adapters.
4. Ultimately though many will be obsolete for Mirrorless, and all will be virtually obsolete once curved sensors take over (DSLR and/or Mirrorless). :king:
I think it's more critical for Nikon to nail the DX Mirrorless range first up than the FX ones - they can survive with the exciting fast prospects, and PF telephotos announced in patents, and their customers existing favorites via adapters.
** One issue I have with Thom's analysis is that it is rather old fashioned. One thing that I find really annoying is this strict regimentation of focal length ranges for all levels of user, but particularly new entrants. By this I mean the familiar 'kit' lenses - the 18-55, + 55-200, + 100-400. I mean who the heck really wants to be changing from one medicore lens to another - it drives me crackers! It's like the makers are trying to 'sell' the 'illusion' of being a serious photographer with a slew of lenses. Just have one really excellent 16-400 with a f5.6 top end and be done with it. Arrgggh!
The advent of software distortion correction helps this change in thinking a bit.
The 300 f2.8 FL E may be on its way "eventually" - but that has been the case for the best part of a decade! It is long overdue in my book! :cat:
** Of course, I agree that other telephotos (such as the 200-500, and 300 f4 PF) are important AS WELL ...... not in preference to, or after the FL's, but 'in addition'. The 5, and 600 f5.6 PF's are also important --- AT THE SAME TIME. I really want a 600 f4 PF (of say ~2.5kg), but I'd also be very happy with a sub 2kg 600 f5.6 first - it would be a useful improvement for me. :t:
** I don't necessarily agree that Nikon needs a fully transparent lens road map - it is commercial confidential after all. What it does need though (with it's history of disappointing customers expectations - particularly with DX lenses) is a way of clearly flagging it's intentions to customers such that they find it reliable and trustworthy.
** I'm going to respectfully disagree with you (and Thom) about the need to leave the "1" series (CX) dead and buried. In fact I think they should do precisely the opposite - bring it back better than ever! :t:
It is a mistake to pension it off for fear of (i) stealing sales off other Nikon lines via internal competition - this is exactly the sort of prehistoric thinking that has seen CaNikon under assault from swarms of nimble MFT's, or (ii) fearing, in case it would
"only compete against their own internal resources". This is a common mistake that struggling or unsuccessful companies make ...... letting strategy be limited by resources (current operations).
A new and improved CX line can offer parametric advantages in size/ less weight against MFT that only it can (within the confines of its sensor performance). Obviously it is going to need a few tricks to compete - full connectivity, computational photography (such as pixel shift high resolution, and picture stacking HDR, stacked BSI sensors or better, etc). It will also need leading IBIS, and fast lenses, fully compatible adapter, adapter/TC combos, etc.
Just my opinion 0.02 BTC you might say! o
Chosun :gh: