Another announcement: Nikon D500!

[scyrene]

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.
I am also Canon's captive (for now) as it would make very little value-for-money sense to move to Nikon. The only reason I would sell up is for less weight and, let's be honest, mirrorless are a bit poor for wildlife (for now). But things change.

Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

My point is that in a world of light weight and feature-rich convenience, Canon's unique selling point is a small number of super-duper specialised/expensive lenses. This is what puts a company on the course of becoming niche.

Of course, historically, ie by virtue of being in existence for so long, Canon offer a wider range of lenses.
But for a 14-year-old getting their first "proper camera" and wanting to have a go at a few types of photography without breaking the bank, or for a grant-parent or new parent: why on earth should they opt for a 760D as opposed to a Panasonic G7? Or is Canon going to try to upsell mass-market customers to a 7D mkII? This is also what puts a consumer company on the course of becoming niche.

Well why shouldn't they? I don't know much about that Panasonic model. But the 760D seems a pretty good entry-level DSLR. And Canon's kit lenses are as good as anyone's, aren't they? Certainly the output would look good to a newbie.

As those who speak in terms of sales will remind us: the vast majority of Canon's income comes from the low-end products. So they must be selling well, and therefore the slide into niche status is not supported by evidence.

 

[bdunbar79]

Shut up all of you! Only low ISO DR matters and low ISO DR, despite being one little factor that not many people care about, is NOT niche. Canon is so in trouble!

;D

 

[Loswr]

I love the MP-E and use it a lot. I guess, in seriousness, Nikon users would rig up something with one of their (said to be) excellent microscope objectives, which can produce similar results.

You can't really just stick a microscope objective on a dSLR, you need intervening optics to enlarge the image circle and position the sensor at the right point in the optical path – basically, you need the microscope – and probably it's light source. Certainly it's possible to attach a dSLR to a microscope, but that's not really a field-portable setup like a dSLR + MP-E 65 + MT-24EX.

Nikon has some good objectives for research microscopes, although their 1x and 2x objectives (which with the necessary enlargement would get you to the 4-5x mag range) aren't among the good ones. Their stereomicrocsopes (dissection/surgical scopes)?are also not stellar. I generally prefer Zeiss scopes and optics (which are actually made in Germany, unlike their camera lenses). I do have a nice Zeiss stereomicrocsope (Stemi DV4) with an eyepiece adapter for dSLRs (and mount adapters for both Canon and Nikon) – it delivers higher final mag than the MP-E lens (20-80x), but it's somewhat portable. Still not nearly as flexible as the MP-E, since the stereomicrocsope needs subjects put on the stage. Not going to get shots like this with a microscope-based solution...

 

[scyrene]

I love the MP-E and use it a lot. I guess, in seriousness, Nikon users would rig up something with one of their (said to be) excellent microscope objectives, which can produce similar results.

You can't really just stick a microscope objective on a dSLR, you need intervening optics to enlarge the image circle and position the sensor at the right point in the optical path – basically, you need the microscope – and probably it's light source. Certainly it's possible to attach a dSLR to a microscope, but that's not really a field-portable setup like a dSLR + MP-E 65 + MT-24EX.

Nikon has some good objectives for research microscopes, although their 1x and 2x objectives (which with the necessary enlargement would get you to the 4-5x mag range) aren't among the good ones. Their stereomicrocsopes (dissection/surgical scopes)?are also not stellar. I generally prefer Zeiss scopes and optics (which are actually made in Germany, unlike their camera lenses). I do have a nice Zeiss stereomicrocsope (Stemi DV4) with an eyepiece adapter for dSLRs (and mount adapters for both Canon and Nikon) – it delivers higher final mag than the MP-E lens (20-80x), but it's somewhat portable. Still not nearly as flexible as the MP-E, since the stereomicrocsope needs subjects put on the stage.

It's not as easy, I'm sure, but I know of photographers who do it. They use some sort of intervening tube setup, I'm not sure of the specifics. But there's a reason most people doing macros in the region of 2-10x (camera) magnification use the MP-E, you're right - it's a great piece of kit that works with no fuss and produces excellent results.

Can the MP-E be modified to mount on a Nikon?

 

[tr573]

I love the MP-E and use it a lot. I guess, in seriousness, Nikon users would rig up something with one of their (said to be) excellent microscope objectives, which can produce similar results.

You can't really just stick a microscope objective on a dSLR, you need intervening optics to enlarge the image circle and position the sensor at the right point in the optical path – basically, you need the microscope – and probably it's light source. Certainly it's possible to attach a dSLR to a microscope, but that's not really a field-portable setup like a dSLR + MP-E 65 + MT-24EX.

Nikon has some good objectives for research microscopes, although their 1x and 2x objectives (which with the necessary enlargement would get you to the 4-5x mag range) aren't among the good ones. Their stereomicrocsopes (dissection/surgical scopes)?are also not stellar. I generally prefer Zeiss scopes and optics (which are actually made in Germany, unlike their camera lenses). I do have a nice Zeiss stereomicrocsope (Stemi DV4) with an eyepiece adapter for dSLRs (and mount adapters for both Canon and Nikon) – it delivers higher final mag than the MP-E lens (20-80x), but it's somewhat portable. Still not nearly as flexible as the MP-E, since the stereomicrocsope needs subjects put on the stage.

It's not as easy, I'm sure, but I know of photographers who do it. They use some sort of intervening tube setup, I'm not sure of the specifics. But there's a reason most people doing macros in the region of 2-10x (camera) magnification use the MP-E, you're right - it's a great piece of kit that works with no fuss and produces excellent results.

Can the MP-E be modified to mount on a Nikon?

You'd end up shortening the MFD since an adapter from EF to F mount would basically be an extension tube. Not sure how practical that would be with the MP-E since the working distance is already so small.

 

[Loswr]

Can the MP-E be modified to mount on a Nikon?

No idea, I expect not. But upon further thought a good bellows (e.g. Novoflex) can achieve magnifications in the 2-10x range on a Nikon camera with available lenses, so it can certainly be done. But the MP-E is really the best solution available (conceptually, it's really just a built-in bellows + lens combo).

I bought my copy used for a mere $500, from a Nikon shooter who had a project he needed to produce for which he bought a Canon body and the MP-E 65mm. Good deal for me, no loss for him since he wrote the gear off as a business expense.

 

[scyrene]

Can the MP-E be modified to mount on a Nikon?

No idea, I expect not. But upon further thought a good bellows (e.g. Novoflex) can achieve magnifications in the 2-10x range on a Nikon camera with available lenses, so it can certainly be done. But the MP-E is really the best solution available (conceptually, it's really just a built-in bellows + lens combo).

I bought my copy used for a mere $500, from a Nikon shooter who had a project he needed to produce for which he bought a Canon body and the MP-E 65mm. Good deal for me, no loss for him since he wrote the gear off as a business expense.

Getting off topic a little I know, but it's one of those lenses that gets more rewarding the more you use it. And one can often tell a photograph taken with it - in a good way.

 

[Loswr]

As for lenses: if you cannot find a suitable Nikon lens for your job or hobby, you're not trying hard enough.

I regularly use my Canon TS-E 17mm and my Canon MP-E 65mm. Can you help me to find a suitable Nikon ultrawide PC-E lens and a suitable Nikon 5x macro lens for my hobby? I guess I'm just not trying hard enough. :

Wow! This is some acutely specialised shooting!
Could you use Nikon tilt shift lenses? Or shoot architecture with a wide lens and click on "lens correction" in post (it is after all a hobby). Why not use extensions for macro?

Nikon's widest PC-E (their tilt-shift equivalent) is 24mm, which isn't wide enough for me in many cases (I have the Canon TS-E 24L II in addition to the TS-E 17). I travel to Europe fairly often, lots of interesting architecture with not much room to back up. For architecture, software corrections for keystoning are less optimal from an imaging standpoint than shifting the lens. Also, proper correction in software requires very loose framing - for the shifted 17mm, getting equivalent framing in a software-corrected shot starting with a level camera would require an 11mm rectilinear lens. Oh, wait...Nikon doesn't have one of those, either – but Canon does (and the 11-24/4L is likely to be the next lens I purchase).

Extension tubes to get into the 4-5x range would mean lots of tube and a wide lens (e.g. 100mm of tube length with a 24mm lens) – that would be a really inconvenient setup, and complicate the lighting solution needed.

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.

My point is that in a world of light weight and feature-rich convenience, Canon's unique selling point is a small number of super-duper specialised/expensive lenses. This is what puts a company on the course of becoming niche.

Sorry, but that's a patently ridiculous contention. Canon's selling point is a high-quality, functional and easy to use camera system that delivers excellent images at reasonable prices. There's a reason Canon is the ILC market leader and has been so for 11 years and counting, and that reason is not TS, super macro and supertele lenses.

 

[crisotunity]

Sorry, but that's a patently ridiculous contention. Canon's selling point is a high-quality, functional and easy to use camera system that delivers excellent images at reasonable prices. There's a reason Canon is the ILC market leader and has been so for 11 years and counting, and that reason is not TS, super macro and supertele lenses.

Except there are now many other choices for all-round-excellence. Unless Canon reacts with products incorporating a clear vision (not pocket cameras/landfill-busters with f7 maximum aperture like they've done this week), they will become niche because nearly everyone else is offering better VfM, features and weight/performance ratio.

The market is already changing and will continue to change. Perceptions will change with it.
I can never win internet debates, so I will just leave you with a slogan from the 1980s: “No one ever got fired for buying IBM” - now, where can I buy an IBM-made ThinkPad?

 

[Loswr]

Sorry, but that's a patently ridiculous contention. Canon's selling point is a high-quality, functional and easy to use camera system that delivers excellent images at reasonable prices. There's a reason Canon is the ILC market leader and has been so for 11 years and counting, and that reason is not TS, super macro and supertele lenses.

Except there are now many other choices for all-round-excellence. Unless Canon reacts with products incorporating a clear vision (not pocket cameras/landfill-busters with f7 maximum aperture like they've done this week), they will become niche because nearly everyone else is offering better VfM, features and weight/performance ratio.

The market is already changing and will continue to change. Perceptions will change with it.
I can never win internet debates, so I will just leave you with a slogan from the 1980s: “No one ever got fired for buying IBM” - now, where can I buy an IBM-made ThinkPad?

Of the other choices you mention, only Nikon is competitive in the dSLR space. dSLRs remain a far larger market than MILCs, and Canon leads the dSLR market. Let me leave you with a statement from 6 years ago: "Mirrorless will kill the dSLR within 5 years." Or perhaps with an acronym and an emoticon:

YAPODFC. :

 

[bdunbar79]

Why do people continue to proclaim that "the market is changing" when it's not? I think it comes back down to basics again. Given data, people often cannot assimilate that data into reality. They have no idea what any of the data means and ultimately, utterly FAIL to make any valid predications, or coherent statements for that matter. When you see no gap narrowing between Canon and Nikon market shares, and no increase in market share from MILC, month after month after month, that says something, and only ONE thing. That's the CONSUMER speaking.

But...I can just feel it this time!

Onto my 2nd point, to say that Canon is becoming niche is at absolutely at its best, ASSININE. All, and I mean all, of the facts and statistics available, say otherwise. So to say that is well beyond stupid.

 

[bholliman]

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.
I am also Canon's captive (for now) as it would make very little value-for-money sense to move to Nikon. The only reason I would sell up is for less weight and, let's be honest, mirrorless are a bit poor for wildlife (for now). But things change.

Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

My point is that in a world of light weight and feature-rich convenience, Canon's unique selling point is a small number of super-duper specialised/expensive lenses. This is what puts a company on the course of becoming niche.

Of course, historically, ie by virtue of being in existence for so long, Canon offer a wider range of lenses.
But for a 14-year-old getting their first "proper camera" and wanting to have a go at a few types of photography without breaking the bank, or for a grant-parent or new parent: why on earth should they opt for a 760D as opposed to a Panasonic G7? Or is Canon going to try to upsell mass-market customers to a 7D mkII? This is also what puts a consumer company on the course of becoming niche.

Probably the main one is that the Canon EOS system is the best overall photography "system" available when you look at support (CPS), quality and breadth of the offering cameras, lenses, flash equipment, etc.

 

[ahsanford]

Imagine that you shoot high school sports with a 7D and would really like better high ISO performance as you have to shoot the second half of most lacrosse, soccer, and football games at 6400 in order to keep the shutter speed up. Consider the option of, perhaps in 6 months or so, upgrading to the mark II. Then consider the option of switching brands and upgrading to the d500 (not too horrible as you only have one real lens). Now, add in your thoughts about how low the 5d mark III might drop once the IV is announced and your thoughts about it as an upgrade to the 7d. What would you do?

Good question. Normally, I'd say stick with Canon, but if you have no major migration costs, the field opens up for you.

If something around 10 FPS is a must, you wait for a 7D3 (going to be a while) or see how much better the D500 does in reviews. Also, it's bit of a left-field call, but I remember that Samsung NX1 was 15 fps with a formidable crop sensor if you can live with mirrorless (and if you can find a dealer -- they appear to be going out of business).

If 10 FPS is nice but strong ISO 6400 performance is a bigger need than framerate, move to FF and get a rig with a strong AF system -- a 5D3 would be perfect. It will clearly outclass any crop rig in higher ISO (including what we expect to be a strong Nikon sensor in the D500), but you'll have to live with 6 FPS. Keep in mind that getting a solid lens to get your reach back on a FF rig will be a cost consideration.

- A

 

[PhotographyFirst]

I've been doing photography long enough to know that announcement spec sheets and hyped "reviews" should be ignored until the production models make it into many hands.

So many cameras have come out over the last couple of years that look like Jesus riding a velociraptor, but turn out pretty underwhelming compared to the spec sheet hype.

What I do find interesting in this new camera though is the automated AFMA function. Strange how Nikon went through all that trouble making such a great AFMA they didn't bother to make it capable of setting focus adjustments to more than one position on the zoom range for the zoom lenses, let alone any different focus distances like can be done with Sigma lenses now. On the plus side, if you need a specific distance adjusted, the automated process might be quick enough to fine-tune out in the field.

 

[ahsanford]

Basically Canon is turning itself into a niche company. Leica have been doing extremely well in this space, so maybe Canon can corner the TS, super macro, super tele-lens market.
I am also Canon's captive (for now) as it would make very little value-for-money sense to move to Nikon. The only reason I would sell up is for less weight and, let's be honest, mirrorless are a bit poor for wildlife (for now). But things change.

Except they produce (I believe) the largest range of lenses of any company. The specialist ones and dozens of generalist offerings. So how is that niche, exactly?

My point is that in a world of light weight and feature-rich convenience, Canon's unique selling point is a small number of super-duper specialised/expensive lenses. This is what puts a company on the course of becoming niche.

Nonsense. I'll get on the 'Canon is as niche as Toyota' bandwagon with everyone else.

But I think (and maybe I'm doing crisotunity a favor here) you could crudely re-jigger up his byzantine set-theory logic like this:

If you don't need a really exotic piece of kit like a 5:1 macro or Ultrawide T/S lens, you could argue there are a number companies with a basic battery of lenses that cover most pedestrian photography needs (Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and the m43 shared mount world).

Given that -- and now let's drink the Kool-aid that all those lenses are equivalent for now -- folks 'starting their photography journey' and picking their first bigger investment rig should choose innovation/features/value proposition over 'the safe/sensible choice / the big name out there'.

If you can walk the line to that point, then it's a feature-based sell. Other companies have fancier sensors (SoNikon), app store tweakable functionality (Sony), 4K (seemingly everyone), tilty-slippy screens (seemingly everyone), automated AFMA (Nikon), spot metering at any AF point (Nikon), etc.

Now this horrifically drives around nontrivial things like 3rd party accessory ecosystems, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc. so I'd never drink that Kool aid, but I could see how a feature-based value proposition argument could be made.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Strange how Nikon went through all that trouble making such a great AFMA they didn't bother to make it capable of setting focus adjustments to more than one position on the zoom range for the zoom lenses...

Well, that would pretty much render the feature a waste of time compared to Canon's current implementation.

 

[Loswr]

But I think (and maybe I'm doing crisotunity a favor here) you could crudely re-jigger up his byzantine set-theory logic like this:

If you don't need a really exotic piece of kit like a 5:1 macro or Ultrawide T/S lens, you could argue there are a number companies with a basic battery of lenses that cover most pedestrian photography needs (Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony, and the m43 shared mount world).

Given that -- and now let's drink the Kool-aid that all those lenses are equivalent for now -- folks 'starting their photography journey' and picking their first bigger investment rig should choose innovation/features/value proposition over 'the safe/sensible choice / the big name out there'.

But then there's the 'my mom uses Canon, my BFF's uncle uses Canon, the pro who shot my cousin's wedding where I met my new girlfriend used Canon' argument. Popularity helps sell cameras.

 

[ahsanford]

Strange how Nikon went through all that trouble making such a great AFMA they didn't bother to make it capable of setting focus adjustments to more than one position on the zoom range for the zoom lenses...

Well, that would pretty much render the feature a waste of time compared to Canon's current implementation.

Or claiming the D5 shoots 4K... for three minutes at a time.

That's a like a superpower that sucks. Like being able to fly... but only if it's to fly into the office to work.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Or claiming the D5 shoots 4K... for three minutes at a time.

Hey, there's an idea. Canon could relaunch the 50D based on the claim that with ML it can shoot a few seconds of 1080p.

 

[ahsanford]

But then there's the 'my mom uses Canon, my BFF's uncle uses Canon, the pro who shot my cousin's wedding where I met my new girlfriend used Canon' argument. Popularity helps sell cameras.

A couple years back, I tried to flow-chart out what camera folks should buy because I got asked so much:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66374817@N04/21685244693/in/datetaken/

I'm embarrassed to show it to proper photographers, especially such a knowledgeable quorum here at CR. But at face value, it's a wretched exercise to try to create an expert system for camera-buying advice. It disregards budget, if your buddy/relative owns lenses you can use, leaves out crucially specific considerations (like the sports shooter on this thread who needs ISO 6400) and doesn't remotely dip it's toes into video, flashes, etc.

- A