Robb Mann wrote:
"We" are expecting the D810 replacement to be announced this summer.

cool

Vector One Photography wrote:
I would probably stick with a cheaper D810.

I will stick with my D800e for another 6 years at least.  I am glad that Nikon does not depend on my business for prosperity.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Neither. Nikon is cutting so much production I wouldn't expect much. I personally cannot advise anyone to invest or further invest into Nikon as a professional. Its a failing brand and their services will take a huge hit upon further lay offs. I dont shoot any 35mm brand so im not a fanboy of one company over another. But having shot all 3 in the past, Nikon, Canon and Sony, I'd say Canon and Sony are the only real serious options for consistency and longevity for a professional looking to get advancements in bodies and customer service. It took me 2 years to sell my D800e for $1450 lol. A mk iii sold that same year, would have sold for $400 more. Nikon depreciates its lines too much including the pro bodies which Canon retains a good $1k lead on used bodies. So NEVER buy new if you MUST buy Nikon. Wait more than 6 months, not only for price, but to make sure there isn't another recall LOL

Nikon offers nothing for video or stills that make it a winner over the others, and thats something photographers seriously need to consider for the future. If you shoot models and people, ISO over 12000 is HARDLY a requirement or having 15+fps. Nikons colors are the least appealing for people as well, so the appeal isn't there AT ALL. I sold my Nikon kit for a old h3d ii, tech from 2007, and im way happier than I was shooting Nikon. I would go canon next if I wanted a 35mm back up (since i've used the 1ds mk iii and 5d mk iv which are amazing cameras) for video and more natural looking stills with better out of camera color. Sony is fine, I just dont like small bodies for a main work camera. If Sony bought out Nikon and used their bodies with Sonys tech and eliminated that god awful rubber grip, it would destroy Canon over night lol

You make several excellent points, but there's something very incorrect about your post. It's something a lot of people say, so understand that this is about 25% for you, and 75% for everyone else.

So I've been using an SLR since the late 80s. I have my MFA in photography, and my undergrad is in art education. Sort of. Weird program. Anyway, the moral is I've had a lot of training with colour, from people that know.  I taught photo at the college level for nearly a decade, and sold cameras for 15. I've used 35mm(or digital versions) cameras from every brand you care to name, owned most of them, used several DMFs, and shot nearly every film stock in production​ in the last 20+ years. I regularly test near-perfect on the X-rite colour tests, with the mistakes being the same one every time. I have very minor blue-green colour blindness, which means I get between one and three wrong every test.

I not only know colour, but I know my limitations.

I have not once, ever, used a single camera or film stock that gave bang-on accurate colour right out the the gate every time - let alone an entire brand. It just doesn't happen.

In fact of all the major brands, Canon is actually the worst: every camera is not only red shifted, but reds are also more saturated, and venture slightly toward magenta. But what they are is consistent, which Nikon is not. Across the entire line, Nikon cameras are the most accurate (Fuji is up there, but their entry-level cameras are a bit screwy); however, they typically err on the side of green, which most people don't like, and often another colour altogether.

That said, 3% too green is still a lot closer than 8% too red, even if you like the red better, or if green does stick out more.

If by 'best' you mean 'most accurate', then Nikons have the best colour among all consumer-priced cameras when used with their own lenses - and that includes my Sonys. What Canon does is err away from accuracy, in a way that you like better. And that's fine - I use Sony largely so I can use glass that gives me the cold tones I like. But don't go blaming that on a fault in Nikon's process.

I made a few pairs of speakers a while back, and did a lot of reading beforehand. There was one specific thing I read that I think applies to photography as well - not to mention a million other things. Paraphrasing:

'If you have a pair of speakers that make everything you play sound awesome, from rock to classical and good recordings to bad, what you've got is an inaccurate pair of speakers. If your speakers really played things exactly how they were recorded, the bad recordings should sound ... Well, bad. And if you like that, good for you - enjoy your speakers.  But if you decide to dip your toes into the world of high-end audio, understand that some things are actually going to sound worse - that's just how accuracy works.'

Zack Zoll wrote:

Thanks for the elegant post.  I think I came from the same background.  When I was a film shooter we used to use cc filters to correct out all our film stock and even down to the stock number and lens.  Nikon was far more accurate than canon in the old days.  i also had to correct out my 4x5 cameras with large films.  It was tedious but it taught me a lot about film and camera accuracy.  Anyone still remember the kodak wratten gels?  I still use a color meter but it is mostly to correct the light coming from more than one light source.  I think nikon does a great job with it's lenses.  I shoot mostly panasonic these days because I love micro four thirds by the way but my coworker loves her nikons.  I just don't have a dog in the fight but I think nikon makes amazing lenses.

btw, I'm not the most technical guy.  I know there are tons of people here who have much more experience in this area than me.  I just don't understand people thinking that certain brands aren't high end.  I think there is something for everyone these days.  There is so much choice out there I think everyone can be happy with their camera equipment.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Snip

'If you have a pair of speakers that make everything you play sound awesome, from rock to classical and good recordings to bad, what you've got is an inaccurate pair of speakers. If your speakers really played things exactly how they were recorded, the bad recordings should sound ... Well, bad. And if you like that, good for you - enjoy your speakers.  But if you decide to dip your toes into the world of high-end audio, understand that some things are actually going to sound worse - that's just how accuracy works.'

KII was not accurate.
Neither was Velvia.
Neither was...
You choose the film that gave you the best bias for the subject you were shooting.

For me what will destroy Nikon is their poor service. The accountants have somehow decided that coming out with a decent model every 30 seconds, and saving on service is a good business model. It used to be that tales of bad Nikon service were news. Now it is the reverse. Good Nikon service is headline news. I almost jumped ship to Sony (it does what I need), but their service is even worse than Nikon, and I have too much invested in good-great Nikon glass.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Neither. Nikon is cutting so much production I wouldn't expect much. I personally cannot advise anyone to invest or further invest into Nikon as a professional. Its a failing brand and their services will take a huge hit upon further lay offs. I dont shoot any 35mm brand so im not a fanboy of one company over another. But having shot all 3 in the past, Nikon, Canon and Sony, I'd say Canon and Sony are the only real serious options for consistency and longevity for a professional looking to get advancements in bodies and customer service. It took me 2 years to sell my D800e for $1450 lol. A mk iii sold that same year, would have sold for $400 more. Nikon depreciates its lines too much including the pro bodies which Canon retains a good $1k lead on used bodies. So NEVER buy new if you MUST buy Nikon. Wait more than 6 months, not only for price, but to make sure there isn't another recall LOL

Nikon offers nothing for video or stills that make it a winner over the others, and thats something photographers seriously need to consider for the future. If you shoot models and people, ISO over 12000 is HARDLY a requirement or having 15+fps. Nikons colors are the least appealing for people as well, so the appeal isn't there AT ALL. I sold my Nikon kit for a old h3d ii, tech from 2007, and im way happier than I was shooting Nikon. I would go canon next if I wanted a 35mm back up (since i've used the 1ds mk iii and 5d mk iv which are amazing cameras) for video and more natural looking stills with better out of camera color. Sony is fine, I just dont like small bodies for a main work camera. If Sony bought out Nikon and used their bodies with Sonys tech and eliminated that god awful rubber grip, it would destroy Canon over night lol

You say you're not a fanboy over one company or the other, yet your entire mis-informed post was an attempt at bashing Nikon. Ever since 1959 Nikon has been 'the' profesional camera manufacturer by which all others are judged, including Leica!

Given all options available, lenses etc, no other company comes close to what Nikon can offer. Fast forward to 2017, their digital bodies offer better performance in every category then their nearest major player, that being Canon. Compare the D500 with the totally underwhelming 7DII, or the D810 vs the 5DIV and then we have the D5 and so on and on.

Sony is a joke, yes they may have great bodies, but look at the lens line-up, maybe what 5 lenses!

Not a fanboy, yeah sure! I reckon you are a Canon mole!

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:

You say you're not a fanboy over one company or the other, yet your entire mis-informed post was an attempt at bashing Nikon. Ever since 1959 Nikon has been 'the' profesional camera manufacturer by which all others are judged, including Leica!

Given all options available, lenses etc, no other company comes close to what Nikon can offer. Fast forward to 2017, their digital bodies offer better performance in every category then their nearest major player, that being Canon. Compare the D500 with the totally underwhelming 7DII, or the D810 vs the 5DIV and then we have the D5 and so on and on.

Sony is a joke, yes they may have great bodies, but look at the lens line-up, maybe what 5 lenses!

Not a fanboy, yeah sure! I reckon you are a Canon mole!

And you are what?

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:
You say you're not a fanboy over one company or the other, yet your entire mis-informed post was an attempt at bashing Nikon. Ever since 1959 Nikon has been 'the' profesional camera manufacturer by which all others are judged, including Leica!

Given all options available, lenses etc, no other company comes close to what Nikon can offer. Fast forward to 2017, their digital bodies offer better performance in every category then their nearest major player, that being Canon. Compare the D500 with the totally underwhelming 7DII, or the D810 vs the 5DIV and then we have the D5 and so on and on.

Sony is a joke, yes they may have great bodies, but look at the lens line-up, maybe what 5 lenses!

Not a fanboy, yeah sure! I reckon you are a Canon mole!

I am responding to the bolded statement, it's possible that your perceptions are correct regarding the UK but here in the US we saw different trends. From the introduction of the Canon EOS 1 series of 35mm SLRs and the Ultrasonic lenses, Canon dominated over Nikon for quite a few years. Canon was quick to offer a full line of professional autofocus lenses for sports, events, weddings, etc. Still the only 50mm 1.0 lens ever offered in autofocus, I wish I'd bought a dozen of them back when they were cheap!

Innovations like rubber belt driven film advance, silent auto-focus and a professional camera with pellicle mirror that did not flip up had wedding and event photographers ditching their noisy, clanking, whirring Nikon gear for Canon in droves here in the States. Photos of sporting events during this time show groups of photographers with white lenses (Canon L series) with the occasional black lens here and there.

I remember a shoot with a borrowed Nikon F4 body, I had to call up my friend and ask him how to rewind the film. Two buttons on opposite ends of the camera needed to be pushed in sequence, cryptic!!! On the Canons at the time, slipping your thumbnail into a slot to press a button initiated rewind, simple and intuitive.

Even as late as the Athens Olympics in 2004, over 70% of registered photographers shot on EOS.

Canon was way ahead of Nikon in digital offerings until the D3. By then, so many shooters had a brace of Canon lenses that it was a major decision to jump ship. That said, many did so. Nikon had superior high ISO performance beyond any doubt.

10 years ago I had an opportunity to shoot a dress rehearsal of a local Nutcracker production. Since many of the dancers were in street clothes and the Artistic Director wanted images, he allowed the two photographers to shoot the actual performance the following evening. I had a Canon 5d and 135 f2 L, the other shooter had a Nikon D300, I don't know what lens he was using.

The AD asked us both to hold our cameras up in the air and fire them so he could hear how loud they were. My 5d made a dull, moist thunk, the Nikon was much louder and sharper sounding. So, I was allowed to find my own spot along the side of the theatre, anywhere I wanted. The Nikon shooter was constrained to the sound board area in the back of the room. For all that, I could hear his camera go off from the opposite corner of a 1,500 seat theater. Nobody noticed me at all, partly because I alway time my shots to the music.

Nikon is great kit, would love to have a Nikon set up, one of the D800/810/820 series would be awesome. Currently I am more interested in the Pentax K1 since I have a nice set of lenses for it already. My 5d is long gone, just a T2i with an 85 1.8 and kit lens. I adapt the Pentax lenses. It's far from ideal but does deliver good results for what I shoot now. I can borrow some great stuff (Mamiya RZ67, Nikon F5, EOS 5d MkII) so I don't care. Just a box with a hole in it in the end.

Motordrive Photography wrote:
As for what would be better, and low cost D810, or a 42-50 mp D820. I would choose both.
Continue production of a lower cost D810 and offer a limited D820 (or D850)

I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what they do. The 810 still has enough advantages over the newer 5D to keep it around, and it would allow for competition at more price points.

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:
You say you're not a fanboy over one company or the other, yet your entire mis-informed post was an attempt at bashing Nikon. Ever since 1959 Nikon has been 'the' profesional camera manufacturer by which all others are judged, including Leica!

Given all options available, lenses etc, no other company comes close to what Nikon can offer. Fast forward to 2017, their digital bodies offer better performance in every category then their nearest major player, that being Canon. Compare the D500 with the totally underwhelming 7DII, or the D810 vs the 5DIV and then we have the D5 and so on and on.

Sony is a joke, yes they may have great bodies, but look at the lens line-up, maybe what 5 lenses!

Not a fanboy, yeah sure! I reckon you are a Canon mole!

Nikon just laid off 1,100 employees. Cut production on numerous older and newer full frame series, and is focusing on its cropped sensor line. They are also getting other companies to BUY in like Fuji in an attempt to save them. Nikon has NEVER been a big digital front runner like Canon. Their film days are over, and so is their reputation from those photographers who have mostly since gone medium format, or Canon. Nikon was the worst investment I ever experimented with. You are caught up on the "specs", not the look or performance. Loaded megapixels honestly means ZERO on full frame sensors after 24 mp. I trial'd the 6d for 3 days and was more impressed with the look of the files over my d800e ones. Nikon images require heavy retouching and color manipulation to look natural and pleasing. Canon files are warm, and more film like. and leave room for more post sharpening. Nikon are overly sharp out of camera, and just look flat and digital.

They can't even handle video, yet alone stills anymore now they can't afford to manufacture sensors since Sony stopped selling to them. Which is both hilarious and brilliant strategy. I think Nikon fanboys are the worst because they are the same types who said digital would never happen. Than mirrorless would never happen. They are in a sense, worse than Leica fanboys because they will defend Nikon until they close their doors and you lose out on massive resale value. My other Nikon colleagues have all gone Canon or Sony, at least 6 in the last two years. Sony bodies aren't considered "professional bodies" either by art directors, campaign managers or artist rep firms. The 5d mk iii+ for example is, while neither Nikon half bodies or Sony's are. Believe it or not, some contracts require certain cameras to be used. Model Mayhem may not cater to that bracket of photographer, but thats the industry when working high budget campaigns. The fashion studio I worked at had to rent medium format systems or Canon's for certain jobs because the 36mp D800e the studio had was not professional and the client didn't want Nikon files lol. Like I said, I went for a 2007 hasselblad over my "new" and "amazing" d800e. Never looked back. Its about the photography, not the specs on paper and performance charts. I'm such a "Canon mole" that my profile picture was shot with a Nikon lol...Catch up with the times.

And while Nikon says it aims for fast action photography. Go look at the sidelines for any game. Canon is there 10-1.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Believe it or not, some contracts require certain cameras to be used.

I've never seen a contract like this myself but by the time you get the contract, you're usually some way down the line with your negotiations. At which point it can be a take it or leave it thing - for both parties.

I'm not sure if I would qualify as a Nikon fanboy.  I've used most makes over the years but it's certainly Nikon I prefer for 35mm digital.

I live pretty close to the Nikon UK HQ and there is definitely something a little amiss with the company right now, in my opinion.  Not sure what.

That’s just from going in there and a few chats I’ve had with the staff.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Nikon just laid off 1,100 employees. Cut production on numerous older and newer full frame series, and is focusing on its cropped sensor line. They are also getting other companies to BUY in like Fuji in an attempt to save them. Nikon has NEVER been a big digital front runner like Canon. Their film days are over, and so is their reputation from those photographers who have mostly since gone medium format, or Canon. Nikon was the worst investment I ever experimented with. You are caught up on the "specs", not the look or performance. Loaded megapixels honestly means ZERO on full frame sensors after 24 mp. I trial'd the 6d for 3 days and was more impressed with the look of the files over my d800e ones. Nikon images require heavy retouching and color manipulation to look natural and pleasing. Canon files are warm, and more film like. and leave room for more post sharpening. Nikon are overly sharp out of camera, and just look flat and digital.

They can't even handle video, yet alone stills anymore now they can't afford to manufacture sensors since Sony stopped selling to them. Which is both hilarious and brilliant strategy. I think Nikon fanboys are the worst because they are the same types who said digital would never happen. Than mirrorless would never happen. They are in a sense, worse than Leica fanboys because they will defend Nikon until they close their doors and you lose out on massive resale value. My other Nikon colleagues have all gone Canon or Sony, at least 6 in the last two years. Sony bodies aren't considered "professional bodies" either by art directors, campaign managers or artist rep firms. The 5d mk iii+ for example is, while neither Nikon half bodies or Sony's are. Believe it or not, some contracts require certain cameras to be used. Model Mayhem may not cater to that bracket of photographer, but thats the industry when working high budget campaigns. The fashion studio I worked at had to rent medium format systems or Canon's for certain jobs because the 36mp D800e the studio had was not professional and the client didn't want Nikon files lol. Like I said, I went for a 2007 hasselblad over my "new" and "amazing" d800e. Never looked back. Its about the photography, not the specs on paper and performance charts. I'm such a "Canon mole" that my profile picture was shot with a Nikon lol...Catch up with the times.

And while Nikon says it aims for fast action photography. Go look at the sidelines for any game. Canon is there 10-1.

This is quite possibly the most misinformed and factually incorrect piece of nonsense I have ever read on here!

Oh where to start?

Firstly some nonsense about certain pro circles requiring a 'particular brand' (let me guess, Canon yes?) of camera because the perception (totally baseless) is/was that skin tones looked better.

Then we have 'Canon files are film like', haha what a joke. Canon were and are known for that hideous banding issue (just zoom in on a high contrast area in a RAW) which resembles dirty video noise, when the reality is Nikon files and images are the closest to a film look.

Then the icing on the cake was something about pro bodies vs non pro bodies etc. As mentioned above since 1959 and right through the decades up into the late 80's early 90's Nikon was without any real competition on the pro front. Yes Canon made a dent with the original EOS bodies for a while, but it was short lived once the D3, D700 etc hit the streets. Since that time Nikon digital bodies have outperformed every Canon released!

Let's see, I don't recall NASA ever calling on Canon's services at any time, except maybe for photocopiers (something they really did well!).

Honestly, are you for real?

Zack Zoll wrote:
Since the has become a business discussion, we should put aside arguments over which camera is better. It doesn't matter. Companies that make superior products go out of business all the time. The only time it matters is if there is a pretty universal perception that you make the best product, and you can sell enough to stay afloat at whatever your profit margin is.

That doesn't apply to Nikon or Canon. Nobody's taking that from Leica any time soon. Whether or not you think they ARE the best doesn't matter; they have that market on lockdown.

Nikon has made a lot of really bad decisions lately, and I attribute it to weak, unconfident leadership. Outside of regular F mount lenses - which they regularly knock out of the park - they spend way too much time listening to their customers. Most people think that's a good thing, but it's not; the loudest voices are almost entirely armchair photographers who are making demands and complaints about things they want to buy down the road - not what they would buy right now.  So they spend all this money on a market that isn't even there.

Perfect example: the 1 system. If they left it as what it was when it first came out (an ILC for people that don't want to learn but want better photos), it would have been a small, relatively profitable product. But they listened to all these stooges that said they should have a pro model and pro prime lenses. Who has $2000 to spend on a camera and one lens and is going to buy a 1” camera that is 90% the size and weight of a larger sensor? That whole project was basically a money pit started by listening to goobers online.

Ditto for their 1” high-end compacts. Even without the sensor supply issues, there wasn't a market for three models. They would have filled their preorders, and within a couple months they'd be down to selling almost none.

Don't even get me started on recalls. Every time they issue one, a whole bunch of testing and review sites demonstrate that other models from other brands have the same issue, but recall them quitely. I think the oily shutter issue was the only recent recall that only affected Nikon ... But they put out all these apologetic press releases, which only draws attention. Now people are actively looking for any problem in a new Nikon model.

Same with customer service. I sold cameras for 15 years, and Tamron was the only consumer-priced brand I would rate above a C for service. But you draw attention to it, and it becomes an expectation.

Good products. Not the best, but many are the best in their price category. Stupid, stupid leadership. I feel like they need to hire an American automotive CEO or something.

This is not really the same story across the pond here. Here Nikon UK/EU enjoy an enviable reputation for customer service, repairs and their NPS programme.

I think Canon have always been more popular (since the late 80's) in the US simply because the products were initially much cheaper than their Nikon counterparts. I seem to remember that the original EOS (650, 620 etc) range of cameras were much less than their equivalent counterparts, and yes this was down to Nikon's complacency that 'we're the top pro brand' and that came back to bite them in the ass.

This was until the Nikon F5. That body essentially killed all others in it's path, but then Nikon got all complacent again with the F6 and their belief that film could rival digital, and so Canon stepped ahead again...for a while!

Personally I would never touch a Canon body again, what with the endless stupid illogical layout of buttons all over the place, the terrible menu system, flimsy wheely button thing and of course that banding issue!

Awful kit, really nasty stuff!

j francis photography wrote:
When do you think we might see the new camera?

Perhaps:
- the same sensor present on the Sony AR7 Mark II
- a similar AF as what is present on the Nikon D5 on term of AF points but don't on pure performance
- the usual absurdity and not sense of two different card slot (SD and XQD) instead of give (as happen on the Nikon D5) the possibility of choice.
Rumors said also a for better high iso performance but with a trade off worst dynamic range as happen with the Nikon D5, etc.
End of the story.

Yani S wrote:
Which Nikon replaces the D700 I still use that and am happy with it.
Colors on point for me. Works great all around. I had it serviced once as a tune up.
So many new Nikons came out since then but all the peoples personal reviews said they like their D700 best.
So why waste money. It will come a point to replace but with which body?

The D700 is like a classic car to me. I have one and I put it through it's paces when the opportunities are best for that camera. When the older gear serves you it's nice to keep.  I hope Nikon keeps the 810 in production a while longer. It's still a great specialty camera.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
I personally cannot advise anyone to invest or further invest into Nikon as a professional. I dont shoot any 35mm brand so im not a fanboy of one company over another. But having shot all 3 in the past, Nikon, Canon and Sony, I'd say Canon and Sony are the only real serious options for consistency and longevity for a professional looking to get advancements in bodies and customer service.

If its still only or stills mainly: Nikon D810, D750 (despite recalls) and D500 are still amazing.
Especially if you buy them used as you mentioned.

For video: Sony and Canon are currently better than Nikon but you have different choices. Sony has 4K (Full Frame too) but now you have to buy a battery grip and/or potentially deal with overheating issues,they put out new bodies quite often so you're probably hit with depreciation if you need to flip your camera, plus they have terrible customer services stories, and may not have the lenses you want yet. Canon has better customer service than Sony and the dual pixel AF is great but you've got 1080/HD or 4k (cropped) , you're getting super large files, and no zebras/focus peaking (has Magic lantern hacked that yet ?) so it's not a slam dunk advantage unless you're ok with 1080/HD.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Nikon offers nothing for video or stills that make it a winner over the others, and thats something photographers seriously need to consider for the future.

When did Sony and Canon get Auto-Focus 28mm 1.4, 58mm 1.4 , and 105mm 1.4 lenses ?

Glamour Alternative wrote:
If you shoot models and people, ISO over 12000 is HARDLY a requirement or having 15+fps. Nikons colors are the least appealing for people as well, so the appeal isn't there AT ALL. I sold my Nikon kit for a old h3d ii, tech from 2007, and im way happier than I was shooting Nikon. I would go canon next if I wanted a 35mm back up (since i've used the 1ds mk iii and 5d mk iv which are amazing cameras) for video and more natural looking stills with better out of camera color.

As mentioned colors are open to preferences and post processing can change things to your liking unless you're a strict jpeg shooter.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Loaded megapixels honestly means ZERO on full frame sensors after 24 mp. I trial'd the 6d for 3 days and was more impressed with the look of the files over my d800e ones.

Happy to hear that as a D600 shooter !
Why not compare the D750/D610 against the 6D instead of the D810 ?
D810 should be compared against the 5DSR.

L o n d o n   F o g wrote:
This is not really the same story across the pond here. Here Nikon UK/EU enjoy an enviable reputation for customer service, repairs and their NPS programme.

I have a slightly different opinion.  The gear is fantastic IMHO but the company not so much.

Last year I had several problems with NPS.  Twice I got back stuff which was not mine and they lost one of my cameras for a week.

And a couple of times, before big jobs, I sent stuff in for cleaning and it came back worse than it went in.

Once I got a new lens back from them with a lens cap from the ‘80s.

It all seemed very shoddy.

I must admit I got a little angry with them at one point and Rob MacNiece (who I believe is in charge of NPS in Kingston) probably saw a bit more of me than he might have liked.

But… he seems like a nice bloke and my view, based on admittedly not very much more than the above, is that they are probably very understaffed.  Nikon UK doesn't seem like a particularly happy place right now.

Call me a Nikon fanboy if you wish.  I’ve always used their gear and love it to bits. 

But I’d still switch in a heartbeat if I thought it would improve the work.

Nikon are a bit like many companies IMHO.  Apple and Audi to name two more.  They produce fantastic products but the humans who work there are often a real pain to deal with.

Canon sponsored one of my recent shows (don’t ask why, I have no idea) and were just as annoying to deal with.

Glamour Alternative wrote:
Loaded megapixels honestly means ZERO on full frame sensors after 24 mp.

I must admit that I’ve never really understood why this is so.  I’m not saying you’re wrong but it’s just something I don’t understand.

I can easily tell the difference on my computer screen between 24 and 36 megapixels and 36 gives me more leeway to crop.  So in that sense, it does make a difference.

But do you mean when the images are printed in beautifully produced magazines at 300 dpi?

Even then, I reckon I can tell.

I also think I can easily tell the difference between a photo that’s been shot on 6x6 or 6x7 and 35mm even when all converted to the same 300dpi.

I accept I may be kidding myself but it would be an interesting test.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

I must admit that I’ve never really understood why this is so.  I’m not saying you’re wrong but it’s just something I don’t understand.

I can easily tell the difference on my computer screen between 24 and 36 megapixels and 36 gives me more leeway to crop.  So in that sense, it does make a difference.

But do you mean when the images are printed in beautifully produced magazines at 300 dpi?

Even then, I reckon I can tell.

I also think I can easily tell the difference between a photo that’s been shot on 6x6 or 6x7 and 35mm even when all converted to the same 300dpi.

I accept I may be kidding myself but it would be an interesting test.

I think you might be kidding yourself on the 24/36 in magazine prints, but for the rest you're bang on. 24mp makes a 250 dpi 16x20; high enough that the extra megapixels won't matter if using cheap (or even average) printers or papers, but low enough that you can see a considerable difference on better printers with better papers.

Then again, some very high end magazines DO print at a high enough resolution to show a difference. The modern Aperture magazine in one example, assuming it's a coated page and not a matte spread.

I find 16x20 to be the point where resolution really starts to matter, be it sensor, lens, or printer. Smaller than that, you'd need to have your face very close to the image to tell. To put it in perspective, a 16x20 viewed from two feet away is the same as an 8x10 viewed from six inches. Not a lot of people are going to look at 8x10s from six inches, even magazines - but viewers will very regularly stand two feet from a 16x20.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I think you might be kidding yourself on the 24/36 in magazine prints...

You may be right.  I’d love to test this but I don’t suppose I will.  Asking other professional photographers exactly what gear they use when one meets them socially is a guarantee that the conversation will not last long.

It might be like the people who reckon they can always tell the difference between film and digital from the printed page too.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
You may be right.  I’d love to test this but I don’t suppose I will.  Asking other professional photographers exactly what gear they use when one meets them socially is a guarantee that the conversation will not last long.

It might be like the people who reckon they can always tell the difference between film and digital from the printed page too.

I used to think I could tell ... And to a certain extent, I still can. But after being exposed to more high quality work, I came to realize that the only reason I can usually tell is because the binary digital process tends to clip highlights (a photosite triggers or it doesn't, you have a drop of ink or you don't) , and digital printers on the whole are a lot less knowledgeable on how to fix these things than darkroom printers; largely because digital printing has automatic and "correct" settings, while no such thing exists in the darkroom. When the editing and printing is done at a really high level, the two are basically indistinguishable.

Aside from dry lab and dye-sub prints ... those you can spot a mile away.

I recently had my first show of note since switching to the Piezography K7 ink system, and a number of people congratulated me on keeping darkroom printing alive. A few of them were people that should know better. Most of the time, I just said thanks and moved on. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't tell the difference, then there isn't one. If they're not looking to buy, then there's no reason to correct them and make them feel stupid.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I recently had my first show of note since switching to the Piezography K7 ink system, and a number of people congratulated me on keeping darkroom printing alive. A few of them were people that should know better. Most of the time, I just said thanks and moved on. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't tell the difference, then there isn't one. If they're not looking to buy, then there's no reason to correct them and make them feel stupid.

I used to think that serious collectors of black and white photographs would only pay decent prices for silver bromide prints (or other some version, like platinum prints).

I don’t think that’s the case any more.  In fact, I know it isn’t because I went to a sale on Tuesday at Bonham’s in London and there were some very good prices being paid for digital prints.

Although, as I suppose you know, there are a variety of fancy names used for versions of digital prints.

I suppose the reasons for this are several. 

Not enough silver bromide prints available for sale made by great but now dead photographers.

The ludicrously high prices now being paid for those that do come on the market.

How quick and easy it is to make new digital prints that can still be sold for a very good price.  Especially those which can be estate stamped (but IMHO not all that much different to expensive posters).

Places like Bonham's seem to intentionally obfuscate the differences between various kinds of print. And in some cases don't mention what kind of print they are selling at all.

Caveat emptor, as they say.