Originally posted by LeeRunge I guess we’ll see in future quarterly reports if it was actual demand and strong sales numbers or no chips for sale.
The iphone may outperform and kill off all but a handful of sales for these cameras in the next 10 years anyway. The 12 was the first one that I actually use often for photo’s now that it works in the dark really well and the RAW images are great. If it was a 24-200 I probably would rarely ever bother bringing an ILC camera with me.
https://youtu.be/idW2ZGcHbaE
The gap keeps closing.
All of them were obvious to me, and that's using half a screen for each photo...
The iPhone absolutely
wrecks facial textures when compared to the Canon, they look unnaturally smoothed out*. It works very well for landscapes and hey, without a side to side comparison it's
fine for portraits too, most people will be very pleased with the quality of the images. It's still incredible how much IQ can be packed in a smartphone, of course, and phones are indeed getting better faster than ILCs.
*And the highlights on the skin look very weird to me, like the software tries to color-correct them or something...
---------- Post added 02-03-21 at 04:08 AM ----------
Originally posted by Rondec I don't think people understand. The question isn't whether Nikon can release more cameras. Olympus released lots and lots of cameras. The question is whether they can sell enough of those cameras (and lenses for them) to turn on a profit -- particularly considering the large investment in R and D it has taken to release those cameras and lenses.
Continuing in the SLR market in many ways would have been the safe way to go. Less investment, solid existing base of users. Releasing a MILC line up with a new mount works if you can convince people that their F mount lenses were no good and that they really need to pay 50 percent more to get the Z mount version of their lenses. It feels like that aspect of things is what has not really panned out. F mount shooters are actually pretty happy with their F mount lenses and the idea that they could get a lens that is 10 percent sharper in the corners for a lot more money doesn't really get them to drop these lenses into the shopping cart.
That's what I think as well, the Z lenses are excellent but if I had a Nikon F-mount 20/1.8 I wouldn't drop
another 1000€ on a slightly better Z-mount option... or heck, the 50/1.8 IMO should have been much more compact, it's nice that it's an optically excellent normal and it's half the weight of a super-50/1.4 like the DFA* or the Sigma Art, but it's not three times as good as the humble 50/1.8G I'd say.