ACJC.S
Tower of Terror
DisneySea, Tokyo.
Shot with the old Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 G. Gear chasers will say that this lens is not sharp enough, Z-ealot shills will tell us we need to move to Nikon mirrorless Z system for the new Z 24-70mm f2.8 S which will make this photo look so much sharper.
What is the reality? The AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 G can indeed do better at resolving finer details but it is still definitely sharp enough for general use, like almost all modern lenses. Gear review sites will never tell us this, all we'll get is the usual spiel that the newer lens just launched is much sharper and better corrected based on MTF and test charts. Or the older lenses do not perform well on the latest high resolution cameras. None will ever tell us that great values abound in the current used market obviously.
Marketing is all about convincing you that the new gear is better and your existing gear is no longer good enough in order to drive you towards making a new purchase after all that reinforcement from the incessant frothing of gear forum fanboi shills.
Instead of getting all caught up with marketing, we can gain so much more by learning to shoot better and more importantly, post-process more competently!
Nikon forum mirrorless Z-ealot shills meanwhile are clutching at straws recently trying to put on a positive spin for their brand’s financial performance.
Nothing like group hallucinations, a gathering of Hare Krishna devotees to drink kool-aid together, somethings never change.
Some tried to distort reality by quoting certain % statistic in isolation. Z-ealot shills got all delirious over R&D % with Nikon spending 14.5% of Revenue currently, Canon and Sony are both at 7.3%. Nikon in normal times like in 2012 spent 7.5% of Revenue on R&D.
All dandy until you delve into the real numbers, 2020 Revenues for Sony ($76b), Canon ($29.7b) and Nikon ($5.4b) vs 2012 Nikon ($11.1b). So quantum of 2020 R&D spend is actually like so; Nikon spent $788m (vs 2012 $838m) vs Canon $2.2b and Sony $5.5b.
Nikon risks burning out just for trying to keep pace with Canon and Sony and given how much market share Nikon has lost in the recent years, they can't bring down their R&D expenses resulting in a generally higher cost structure to spread out over declining units. It's no wonder they are unable to deliver value when they are so constrained with pricing. Make no mistake, Nikon has major problems although real hobbyists will hope they succeed rather than fail since more competition is always good for the consumer.
Nikon can’t stay competitive by rehashing the same old playbook, they need more unique products that the other brands lack such as lightweight fresnel supertele prime in Z mount for instance. Hopefully Nikon can surprise us positively with their next camera releases.
I’m looking out for their Z 24-105mm f2.8-f4.0 S (hopefully it has VR) which is really the lens to get over the rather limiting Z 24-70mm f4 S and ho-hum Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 VR. In fact I’ll take the 24-105mm (or 24-120mm) over the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S any day. That is the way with lens releases especially for a new system, the more desirable lenses tend to be released later and many hobbyists not knowing any better will typically end up buying and selling a few rounds before finally settling on what they really need/want.
Looking at what Canon did, value added macro capability with their affordable f1.8 Primes, unique f2.0 28-70mm zoom, lightweight 70-200mm f2.8, f11 supertele Primes, EOS-R5, this is what pushing the envelope is about. Why keep making the same f1.8 Primes and f2.8 zooms and UWA zooms that start at 14mm when the market has moved on to 12mm? Nikon must do much better than rehashing more of the same, a little better performance than the past but charging ever higher prices without really innovating or offering anything extra will hasten the downward spiral.
Latest on DpReview regarding Nikon’s financials; m.dpreview.com/news/3001593019/nikon-q3-financial-report-....
A fair report to be honest but as expected, Nikon Z-ealot shills cried foul and accused DpReview of negativity and being anti-Nikon, so much insecurity to the point of being delusional! Some of the comments are downright comical showing an utter lack of understanding in financial reporting and even utter cluelessness over the concept of market share!
Nikon forum shills have no clue what long term trends mean either, it’s been a downhill slide for the past few years. Desperation have driven them to focus on any short term spike to assuage their bruised ego. Always a curious thing to observe, people tying their self-worth over a photographic brand, tragic comedy! I use Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Ricoh cameras, yet I hardly ever come across such toxic, bitter and delusional shills like those in Nikon forums!
Tower of Terror
DisneySea, Tokyo.
Shot with the old Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 G. Gear chasers will say that this lens is not sharp enough, Z-ealot shills will tell us we need to move to Nikon mirrorless Z system for the new Z 24-70mm f2.8 S which will make this photo look so much sharper.
What is the reality? The AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 G can indeed do better at resolving finer details but it is still definitely sharp enough for general use, like almost all modern lenses. Gear review sites will never tell us this, all we'll get is the usual spiel that the newer lens just launched is much sharper and better corrected based on MTF and test charts. Or the older lenses do not perform well on the latest high resolution cameras. None will ever tell us that great values abound in the current used market obviously.
Marketing is all about convincing you that the new gear is better and your existing gear is no longer good enough in order to drive you towards making a new purchase after all that reinforcement from the incessant frothing of gear forum fanboi shills.
Instead of getting all caught up with marketing, we can gain so much more by learning to shoot better and more importantly, post-process more competently!
Nikon forum mirrorless Z-ealot shills meanwhile are clutching at straws recently trying to put on a positive spin for their brand’s financial performance.
Nothing like group hallucinations, a gathering of Hare Krishna devotees to drink kool-aid together, somethings never change.
Some tried to distort reality by quoting certain % statistic in isolation. Z-ealot shills got all delirious over R&D % with Nikon spending 14.5% of Revenue currently, Canon and Sony are both at 7.3%. Nikon in normal times like in 2012 spent 7.5% of Revenue on R&D.
All dandy until you delve into the real numbers, 2020 Revenues for Sony ($76b), Canon ($29.7b) and Nikon ($5.4b) vs 2012 Nikon ($11.1b). So quantum of 2020 R&D spend is actually like so; Nikon spent $788m (vs 2012 $838m) vs Canon $2.2b and Sony $5.5b.
Nikon risks burning out just for trying to keep pace with Canon and Sony and given how much market share Nikon has lost in the recent years, they can't bring down their R&D expenses resulting in a generally higher cost structure to spread out over declining units. It's no wonder they are unable to deliver value when they are so constrained with pricing. Make no mistake, Nikon has major problems although real hobbyists will hope they succeed rather than fail since more competition is always good for the consumer.
Nikon can’t stay competitive by rehashing the same old playbook, they need more unique products that the other brands lack such as lightweight fresnel supertele prime in Z mount for instance. Hopefully Nikon can surprise us positively with their next camera releases.
I’m looking out for their Z 24-105mm f2.8-f4.0 S (hopefully it has VR) which is really the lens to get over the rather limiting Z 24-70mm f4 S and ho-hum Z 24-200mm f4-6.3 VR. In fact I’ll take the 24-105mm (or 24-120mm) over the Z 24-70mm f2.8 S any day. That is the way with lens releases especially for a new system, the more desirable lenses tend to be released later and many hobbyists not knowing any better will typically end up buying and selling a few rounds before finally settling on what they really need/want.
Looking at what Canon did, value added macro capability with their affordable f1.8 Primes, unique f2.0 28-70mm zoom, lightweight 70-200mm f2.8, f11 supertele Primes, EOS-R5, this is what pushing the envelope is about. Why keep making the same f1.8 Primes and f2.8 zooms and UWA zooms that start at 14mm when the market has moved on to 12mm? Nikon must do much better than rehashing more of the same, a little better performance than the past but charging ever higher prices without really innovating or offering anything extra will hasten the downward spiral.
Latest on DpReview regarding Nikon’s financials; m.dpreview.com/news/3001593019/nikon-q3-financial-report-....
A fair report to be honest but as expected, Nikon Z-ealot shills cried foul and accused DpReview of negativity and being anti-Nikon, so much insecurity to the point of being delusional! Some of the comments are downright comical showing an utter lack of understanding in financial reporting and even utter cluelessness over the concept of market share!
Nikon forum shills have no clue what long term trends mean either, it’s been a downhill slide for the past few years. Desperation have driven them to focus on any short term spike to assuage their bruised ego. Always a curious thing to observe, people tying their self-worth over a photographic brand, tragic comedy! I use Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Ricoh cameras, yet I hardly ever come across such toxic, bitter and delusional shills like those in Nikon forums!