I love Nikon cameras. I've been using them since I bought a secondhand EL2 in 1984. I've owned more Nikon cameras than I care to remember, and just last month, I acquired an F from 1972. So this isn't an anti-Nikon article, nor am I arguing that Nikon makes bad cameras. Quite the opposite. I’m a bit of a fanboy, if I’m completely honest.
Nikon makes some of the best cameras in the world. But there’s something that has been bothering me for a while: I think Nikon has forgotten about the photographer.
The company has become very good at making cameras that do everything. Photography, video, vlogging, streaming, and content creation are increasingly packed into the same body. I understand why. The market has changed, video is enormously important, and there is a huge audience for cameras that can handle both stills and motion.
Nikon's acquisition of RED only reinforced its ambitions in professional video. Its recent attention has leaned heavily in that direction, from cinema lenses to updates for the Nikon ZR. From a business perspective, that makes perfect sense.
But as a photographer, I don't necessarily want my stills camera to do everything. Sometimes I just want it to be a really good camera for taking photographs.
So where is Nikon's photographer's camera?
The obvious answer is the Nikon Z f, and it is probably the closest thing Nikon currently makes to what I have in mind.
It's beautifully retro-styled, with proper brass dials, a shutter speed control, and an ISO dial. It acknowledges something camera manufacturers sometimes seem to forget: photographers care about the physical experience of using a camera.
And yet, beneath that traditional exterior, the Z f is still very much a modern hybrid.
It offers extensive 4K video functionality, 10-bit H.265 recording, N-Log, and a fully articulating rear screen designed in part with video and content creation in mind. Those are useful features for many people. I simply don't need them.
That's the point. Why does every serious camera have to serve every possible kind of user?
Why can't Nikon make one camera that simply says: “This is for photographers.”
Leica Gets It
This is where I think Leica has been rather clever, and I have a particularly good example sitting on my desk: my Leica M10.
The M10 is a modern digital camera that doesn't shoot video. It has a full frame sensor, excellent image quality, interchangeable lenses, and very little else competing for your attention. I absolutely love it.
It is simply a camera for taking photographs.
After decades of photography, I've discovered that there is something incredibly refreshing about that.
Less Can Be More
One could argue that Leica's digital M cameras are technologically primitive by modern standards. They omit features that have become routine elsewhere, including in-body image stabilization. But they remain highly capable cameras because Leica has been unusually disciplined about deciding what an M camera is supposed to be.
That is the part I think Nikon has missed.
Leica never abandoned film cameras, either. It still understands that there is an audience for cameras built around the act of photography itself rather than around an ever-expanding list of functions.
The broader camera industry seems to operate on the assumption that more functionality automatically makes a camera better: more video modes, more megapixels, more connectivity, more automation, and increasingly more software doing the thinking for you.
Some photographers, myself included, actually want less.
I want to pick up my camera, attach a lens, set the aperture, set the shutter speed, focus on my subject, and take a photograph. That's it. The camera should be a tool, not something constantly reminding me how many other things it can do.
That simplicity makes me want to take photographs.
The Z f Was So Close
That is what makes the Nikon Z f slightly frustrating.
Nikon clearly understands the emotional appeal of a traditional camera. The Z f looks fantastic, its physical controls are satisfying to use, and it draws heavily on Nikon's own photographic history.
It feels like a camera rather than another anonymous box of electronics.
But Nikon still couldn't quite bring itself to make the Z f purely photographic. Underneath the retro styling is another full-featured hybrid system. That makes perfect sense for Nikon's broader market, but it also makes me wonder what the camera could have been if the company had been willing to exercise a little more restraint.
Imagine a Nikon M
This is what I'd like Nikon to make: something deliberately, unapologetically photographic.
Imagine a full frame Nikon with the company's latest sensor and autofocus technology, wrapped in a body inspired by something like the Nikon F2 or even the older rangefinder-style Nikon S cameras. Make it smaller and simpler, in the spirit of Leica's M series, but unmistakably Nikon.
Give me a proper shutter speed dial, an ISO dial, an excellent electronic viewfinder, and either a fixed rear screen or a simple tilting one.
Give me a mechanical shutter. Leave video out entirely. Skip the creator modes and the endless layers of features intended for people who will never use the camera primarily for still photography.
And make it properly. Metal bodywork. Good mechanical controls. Something that feels as though it was designed to last rather than simply to hit a specification and a price point.
I'd buy one.
I suspect plenty of other photographers would too.
Nikon, Give Us a Choice
I'm not asking Nikon to abandon video.
I'm asking Nikon to give photographers a choice.
The company already has the technology, the lenses, the engineering expertise, and one of the richest photographic legacies in the industry. So why not use all of that to make one camera that deliberately does less?
Leica has shown that there is still a market for cameras built around photography rather than content creation. Nikon doesn't need another specification monster to prove what it can do. It needs a camera that remembers what made so many of us love Nikon in the first place. A photographer's camera.
Nikon, if you're listening... Please make one.
Join the Fstoppers community for free
-
Post comments and join in the discussions
-
Browse the site ad-free
-
Share your work and get featured in the community
-
Compete in the photo contests for fun and prizes
93 Comments
Thank you for your comment, sorry i didn't respond sooner—i'm having trouble keeping up with so many comments! I agree, the world is full of to many choices, as marketing teams work to improve the bottom line. It makes little sense to me.
The D800 is all you need, it's a fabulous camera. I bought the D700 in 2008, which is similar I believe. A friend just purchased a nice D800 on marketplace, and loves it.
I still have that camera today, but it's too big to travel with! it didn't change, I just got a lot older!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and lovely image 🙏🏼
Nikon forgot about photographers a long, long time ago.
I'll admit it. I clicked over from the facecrook post ready with a snarky PetaPixelesque comment. Instead, what I read struck me at the core of my photographer. I, too, have been a Nikon shooter since switching from Olympus as a young photojournalist. And, like the author, I've owned the F2, F3HP, F4s, FM2n, F100 and even the 8008. My collection still has the original '72 F2 the MD2MB1 motor, a pristine '67 Ftn, F3HP/MD4, an F2S, my trusty FM2 and a nice EL.
And when Nikon announced the Zf I was so stoked! Finally! They overcame their Df debacle and built a digital body for photographers. I'd already been shooting Fuji X-Pro bodies for years and this had me excited to go retro full frame with Nikon glass.
I almost walked out of Mike's camera with one. So close. And yet something about it was bothering me. This article sums up that discontent. It had too much packed into that FM2-looking body. And the limited plasticky lenses with a retro skin over them. Meh.
Oh Nikon, for a "retro" body that stays pure to us old-schoolers! And there is a market, too. I know there must be. I left Mike's that day with my Fuji and seriously considered the Zf for months after that. And each time I came back to the simple fact that — had they skipped the video (and refined some other design flaws) — I would have switched from my X-Pro 2 in a heartbeat.
I don't think Nikon is listening.
Thanks for the comment. No, Nikon doesn't seem to be listening, while other manufacturers are. They may get left behind, sadly. Just this week they launched another new camera... with no EVF, aimed at content creators. Again.
The 8008 was a great camera. Affordable, capable, and it has lasted for decades.
I don’t get it. All brands are making hybrid cameras now. If cameras was only for photo maybe the marked would be so small we would not get these amazing cameras we now have.
How many would want Nikon to rip out of the camera/software everything video related and then charge more? Leica is expensive. It might feel right but not for the wallet of most people:)
Did not Nikon be a king of photography for 50 years or more? Ok so Sony did better with mirrorless cameras and Nikon did bite the dust, but now they are killing it.
Don't get me wrong, I love hybrid cameras and use them all the time. But there is a market for a pure photography camera, and I believe Nikon would do really well if they made one. Leica is proving there is a huge market. New Leicas are too expensive for most of us, so the answer for many photographers on a budget is to buy a 15 year old digital Leica. The used market is nuts right now, for something that is pretty archaic. But that's what people want, and are willing to sacrifice low light performance to afford it.
Nikon needs to improve their entry level line in order to being new people into their product ecosystem, then for mid range and up, focus on designs that will make switching to a Nikon camera body easier. For example, take what they learned from RED, and add replaceable lens mounts to their ILC cameras (attached a random example), that will support auto focus and various other lens features, then make mounts for E-mount, X-mount, L mount, RF Mount, and many others.
At the moment, Nikon doesn't have many affordable lens options, for the Z-mount, especially when it comes to the more budget end as well as APS-C.
Do swappable active lens mounts that they avoid price gouging on, and then people will see the platform as having more lens options, and makes switching easier as there is no rush to sell their existing lenses.
An interesting perspective although I really tried to transcend the hubris without much success. Suppose I declared that the be all and end all for photographers was a MILC with cross type AF sensors, a FPS of 40 fps, global shutter, RAW precapture, and fantastic ISO/DR because my genre was sports and WL. Another user might argue a cooled sensor, with a high QE, and low read noise was best because they were focused on astrophotography. So who is right? The marketplace and since you seem to admire Leica, maybe that’s a better choice for your needs. My take on all of this that as photographers we’ve never had so many tools at our disposal and the only real limitations are what we can conceive, not the cameras themselves.
Some good points. There is no right or wrong. We all have different ideas for what we want as a tool. Some want the AI-driven computer in a camera to do the thinking for them, so want a purely manual experience. There are some great cameras out there for everyone. But brands like Nikon are missing a trick, in my opinion, buy not addressing a market that is clearly out there.
Engineer here so probably going to annoy some people (Hi Simon).. from a design and economics perspective, this article is ridiculous.. Camera companies want to use common components to keep cost down (except Leica where cost is irrelevant).. so naturally they are all going to gravitate to the latest silicon and main boards available when they produce a camera.. and software is software.. from a cost perspective it costs Nikon exactly nothing to offer “hybrid” video features because they've already developed and proven them on every other camera using the same internal architecture… that way the camera appeals to the widest audience it can.
Yes the M is an exception to this rule.. I have an M11P, SL3, and a Canon R5ii.. I previously had a Z6 and a Z9.. Leica does what they want with the M because its an icon priced where no other full frame camera dare go.. Nikon builds tools for the masses, thus they must build cameras to appeal to as many people as possible.
If you don't like hybrid features, don't use them. If you want to pay more for less, buy a Leica.
And if you are wondering, I left Nikon over the size and cost of their lenses. Absolute beasts producing amazing images. Exceptional quality, but not what I want to carry around when traveling. Also, all Nikon current cameras, because of their exceptional thermal management offer mind-boggling technology for PHOTOGRAPHERS. 120+fps capture with frame by frame autofocus. Insane preroll capture, blackout free viewfinders running 120fps, autofocus that can grasp onto virtually any and every type of object in light so dark your eye cant distinguish whats in the frame… I could go on, but I doubt your reading this with an open mind.
Some very good points, being read with an open mind And I agree with everything you say.
But I think you missed my point. Nikon do have some incredible cameras. I use a Z9, Z6iii Z6, and Z50 currently. But outside of commercial work where I wouldn't dream of using a Leica, I don't want mind-boggling technology for my personal photography because I don't use it. Yes, I can use my insanely capable hybrid Z6iii. And I do. But it's a plastic mini computer that has no soul. It gives me no joy. Plus it's bigger than it needs to be because of the stuff in it I don't want or need. An old mechanical film camera give me joy and pure photography experience, but film is a pain, and expensive. Leica have identified a market and figured it out, so why can't Nikon?
Currently I shoot with little manual M lenses on my Nikons, because as you mentioned, the new AF lenses for the latest cameras are too big and heavy. Not to mention very fragile, and useless for zone focusing for street and travel photography. My new lenses feel like plastic toys too.
You're looking at this from an engineering perspective, I'm not interested in engineering, I'm interested in the pure joy of using a tool that feels good in the hand, and allows me to enjoy the experience of photography without hinder. My 1978 EL2 allows me to do that. My Z6iii doesn't. This article is an opinion piece, nothing more. I appreciate your input.
I am genuinely curious, what Canon and Sony camera offer the experience you are describing?
Edit: what cameras even get close? I know of three current cameras that I rank highest in extremely photo-first designs: the M and the 2 current Hasselblads. Even the Leica SLs are true hybrids, although they aren’t covered in buttons.
There are no Canon or Sony cameras offering a true and simple photography experience. Yes, Hasselblad and Leica are the only toe companies who make photography-only digital cameras.
Re: Leica SL's, as nice as they are, that's one Leica I can't see the point in buying when Nikon Sony, Canon, Lumix offer better options much cheaper. That's a whole different discussion though!
As someone upthread pointed out: Pentax makes pure photography cameras (maybe they have video, I'm not sure, and I do own the most recent Pentax cams), but the extraneous features certainly aren't emphasized.
I may be out of date with what features the newest cameras have, but a camera aimed at photographers with the software of a mobile phone would be amazing. We have the EVF, but it's not used to it's potential. If shooting a time lapse, let me choose the setting and show the output in the EVF before I shoot. Same for panorama, guide me through it so I get full coverage.
Thank you for sharing that opinion, caught my attention enough to start an account. I love my Nikon cameras, and agree with you, I would be ready to buy if Nikon did happen to give us the camera we want.
Thank you, and welcome!
Nikon has simply followed the path of it's closest competitors, Canon, & Sony in order to remain viable.
As a Canon shooter, there was similar distain on Canon forums such as, "I'm a still shooter---why should I have to pay extra for video capability that I have no use for". But the trend exists and will not likely reverse.
Leica, on the other hand, is more of a niche camera, not competing with the "big 3", but appealing to a dedicated group who can afford it's pricing which generally runs more than double that of Canon, Nikon, or Sony's near equivalents.
I also have been shooting for 40 years in the editorial (not hard news) world and the commercial advertising world and in that time I knew probably 100+ photographers. Only four used Leica as their primary camera. A couple more had a Leica that they would use for a "what else" shot a few frames to mix in the Nikon-Canon-Sony frames. I don't know if made a difference in how they shot, maybe it did
Would the people who want the Leica experience be happy using a modern Leica like Nikon or would it be sort almost but not quite there?
I dunno Porsche has brought out retro simpler 911 models but they were no bargain.
El problema es uno solo: cuantos fotógrafos comprarían esa cámara? seria económicamente rentable? yo trabajo con cámaras Nikon desde 1975, no hago video y utilizo mis Z7II y Z5 como cámaras fotográficas solamente!!! pero no se puede ignorar que Nikon es una empresa industrial y necesita vender, y para vender hay que producir lo que el gran publico demanda.
I think a lot of photographers would buy that camera.
I use Nikon most of the time and lately its been a D4S with a manual 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 AIS zoom. Why you ask? I am more in control of my exposure and focus, which includes DOF control which leads to stronger composition. The lens being introduced in 1985 and engineered for film gives my images a beautiful look especially in black and white. I is still imaging and not true film photography. Nikon had the sense to program in a non CPU lens option in most of their DSLR and mirrorless products which makes using some of this stellar retro glass still usable today. So if you really want to get that retro feel in shooting, put on an manual Nikkor and go back in time. But why not buy a used film Nikon? That is the real deal that also goes for Leica, I've been using Leica M's for years and own a few digital as well as film bodies and lenses. Sure the M10 just captures stills but its not the same as capturing photographs with a film Leica M, The cameras look the same but that about it, advancing film with a film Leica is magical, the sound of the shutter, how subjects look through the viewfinder of a M4 clear uncluttered, frame lines illuminated my natural light, the killer still is the sound of that mechanical shutter, pure magic. My go to film Leica is the M4-2, no meter simple frame lines. The glass is the magic, no use getting a Leica and adding a third party lens, same goes for Nikon. These two companies made and still make some of the best lenses and set the standard even today. So go retro, go manual all the way and if you dare get a film camera and shoot some film.
Great comment, thanks. I agree, an old film camera provides a wonderful experience. I shoot film on an M3, and it's a joy to hold and wind that shutter! I use my old Leica lenses on a mirrorless Nikon too. The cost of film and processing does hold me back from shooting more on my film cameras sadly.
Another BS clickbait article from you bunch of twats. GO back to college, obtain a DEGREE or MASTERS in Business and then after 30-40 years of actual hands on work in the field give out business advice - otherwise STOP with stupidity.
FYI, I've been working in photography and business for 40 years. Built three successful businesses on two continents, and photographed for large brands around the world. How much more do i need to do before I'm allowed to share an opinion?
Sorry you're having a bad day and feel the need to be nasty to make yourself feel relevant. I hope you feel better by tomorrow. 🙂
Another in what I'm sure is a long list of episodes of 'Angry Andy Gets Superior'. (sigh . . . ).
It would have taken you, Andy, no more than about 10 seconds to click on Simon's profile page and see that he does appear to have the experience you think is necessary before writing an opinion piece. Which might have saved you from writing such a stupid and demeaning comment of your own. And don't confuse an opinion with advice. You don't need a Master's degree to express an opinion.
The only video I shoot is on my phone, I've never even tried the video function on any of the half dozen DSLR and mirrorless cameras I've owned that have the feature. However I doubt I'm paying anything for video I don't use, more likely it would be considerably more expensive for a stills only version of the Z5iiC (or other hybrid) that would have a much smaller customer base. Current cameras generally let you reassign control functions so stills only shooters can even put video buttons and switches to good use.
Don't really understand all the yowling over a company's choices for an entry level camera not intended for the audience making all the noise.
Simon,
In some ways, your article “Nikon Has Forgotten the Photographer” relates to a few recent articles on The Online Photographer by Mike Johnston (TOP). Mike’s article, “Five Ways I Wish Cameras Had Evolved Differently,” he talks about what cameras could have been. I don’t think it’s just Nikon that has forgotten the photographer, but other camera manufacturers are like that too. They are going the way of video because that’s where the money is.
I think photography has more or less had its heyday, at least digital still photography. It’s interesting how Leica has taken the lead in still photography; I love their cameras. However, not many photographers can afford to pay for the cameras or lenses, although luckily, there are M lens alternatives like those from Voigtländer, which are reasonably affordable. With the Leica M camera bodies, one has to look to the used market, often still paying thousands of dollars for cameras that are 10 or even 15 years old.
What I think would have been interesting and perhaps more of an affordable alternative is if the Epson R-D1 from 2004 had continued in development. But I don’t think it's realistic that any camera manufacturer would spend a large amount of R&D money to bring something like that to the market because still photographers make such a small segment of the digital visual community these days.
-Gary
I completely agree Gary, all the big manufacturers have followed the money. It's easier to convince an impressionable wanna digital creator they need to buy the latest shiny thing, than a seasoned photographer.
It will be interesting to see how the third party start-up brands making copies of Leica M mount lenses are going to have an impact on the stills photography market. Many photographers, myself included, are buying these very affordable lenses and using them on a modern mirrorless camera with adaptor. I would like to think the big camera brands would take notice and figure out the Leica approach has a lot of appeal.
Thanks for your comment.
Thanks for your response to my comment, Simon. I, too, think it’s interesting to see how third-party startup brands making Leica M-Mount lenses will have an impact on the still photography market. I love to see the big camera brands taking notice of the Leica approach, but I think we are in a minority, so I don’t see any major announcements anytime soon- but who knows!
No, this article is just Ned Ludd in action. Sure, my Z8 has a thousand different controls and alternatives, and I can also do video if I wish.
I mostly use my Z8 in the exact same way I used my F801, but with better controls and such. I have incredible flexibility in setting up the camera to suit my photography. I spent a couple of hours customising my Z8 to be MY camera, and then forgot about it. The shutter shock free electronic shutter is video technology. For my architectural photography, a 10 second delay lets me do five frame HDR handheld thanks to IBIS. Contrary to Burn’s opinion my Z8 IS just a good camera for taking photographs. Who cares if it can also sing, dance and do video.
I have just come back from photographing some pretty dark monuments, where a tripod is out of the question. My Z8 (as my EM5 before) gets the shots I want. In fact, I am amazed at the sharpness I get at 1/8 second. A crippled M10 with no IBIS is not what I need. My Z8 lets me get good photographs of situations, that were impossible with a simple camera.
Sorry Nikon makes modern cameras. The Ned Ludd’s of photography have been whining about technological progress ever since the Glass Plate negative, was replaced with Celluloid, and probably before that too. before that too.
Congratulations on successfully customizing your expensive supercomputer. It takes real artistic vision to let an electronic shutter and 20 fps do the hard work while claiming victory over the 'Ned Ludds' of the world.
Yeah, I have a Z9 for the stuff you're talking about shooting. And a Z6iii. They're great plastic boxes stuffed with a powerful computer that performs witchcraft electrickery.
You've completely missed the point of my article. Some of us want to do just photography on a simple camera without technological distractions. But film is expensive so a digital option is preferable. Leica address this. There's obviously a very strong market for what they produce, but sadly many people craving an M10 or M11 can't afford one. If Nikon were to make one at a better price point, they'd do very well, i'd bet.
This has nothing to do with being a Luddite Nigel, but thanks for sharing your somewhat myopic point of view. 👍
Sorry, I do not understand this reasoning. I can turn my Z8 into a simple camera in about five minutes. In fact for my Architectural photography some of my MF lenses do not even communicate with the camera. And of course it is set to single shot for this type of photography.
That's OK, I don't expect everyone to understand my reasoning. There are many who do, many who don't 🙂
But for fashion and everything with people, you want to have a flip-out screen, or it will kill your back. Shooting from eye level is the most unprofessional thing in this genre. The reason the hasselblad 500 and other known cameras in this genre also had no viewfinder :)
Yes, a fold-out screen like on the Z6 and Z9, not a flippy selfie screen like on the newer models.
My first professional-grade camera was a Nikon FTN. Memories of how overjoyed using it left me feeling still linger. From that point onward I thought that Nikon would be my primary supplier. Later came Leica M4s during my "Cartier-Bresson" phase and eventually, when digital cameras began to offer high quality resolution, Nikon was again my choice
In the meantime, have learned and appreciated the advantages (and limitations) of high-quality compacts, when Nikon began promoting a duo set of upcoming 1" sensor compacts with impressive specs, I eagerly anticipated their arrival. And anticipated, and some more–until Nikon executives made the abrupt announcement that these two cameras, after a year of hyped advertising, would NOT be issued because "THEY" had decided that there was "no longer a market" for such cameras. I immediately thought and felt "Well, f•ck you, too a**holes. You obviously have lost touch with photographers. Never looked back
When you say "You obviously have lost touch with photographers." are you referring to me or Nikon?
Real photographers aren't so picky and gear-headed. Anything that does the job, does the job. I don't have any trouble picking up a modern camera with 50 functions I will never use, and quickly adapting it to me and me to it. And working happily and seamlessly by being photo-oriented.
And yes, I learned photography on old simple film cameras, in older, simpler days. That doesn't change anything.
I don't have any problem picking up any modern camera to use as a tool to get the job done either. I've been doing that for 40 years for publications, brands and tourism organizations. I'm hoping by now i'm a "real photographer". 😅
More of my photography now is for me, for fun. I want a camera that feels good to hold and use. I want an enjoyable experience. Leica can deliver that, but sadly not Nikon.
This article is merely an opinion piece, wondering why Nikon don't make something for all the photographers out there who think like me. And there are a lot.