Performance improvements with firmware for D750

I like the Fuji's practice of continuously upgrading the firmware to improve their cameras' performance.
I think Nikon should do the same thing. Perhaps this forum can start some kind of campaign to make this happen.
The first thing I have in mind is the HDR capability whenever JPG is the chosen format for any memory card in the camera, not just the first card as it is now.
Please think about other improvements you wish to have and perhaps the moderators of this forum can compile a list and send it to Nikon.
Wouldn't it be great to have free firmware upgrade to improve your camera's performance instead of just bug fixing?
Thanks.

TieuNgao said:

I like the Fuji's practice of continuously upgrading the firmware to improve their cameras' performance.
I think Nikon should do the same thing. Perhaps this forum can start some kind of campaign to make this happen.
The first thing I have in mind is the HDR capability whenever JPG is the chosen format for any memory card in the camera, not just the first card as it is now.
Please think about other improvements you wish to have and perhaps the moderators of this forum can compile a list and send it to Nikon.
Wouldn't it be great to have free firmware upgrade to improve your camera's performance instead of just bug fixing?
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Isn't it better not to release the camera to market in the first place, with substandard firmware that gives substandard performance, just to make the consumers think the manufacturer is doing them a favor by later releasing the better firmware that the product should have had to begin with?

There're always rooms for improvements regardless how good the products are. Besides, technologies don't stand still. Even if you have a perfect product today, which never is the case, you can make it better tomorrow.

I think this practice is a win-win situation.
To the customers who already owned the cameras, they'll be happy to have new features added to their cameras, free of charge.
To the new customers, they feel confident that the cameras they're going to buy won't become obsolete soon with continuously improved performance and updated features.
To the manufacturers, their older cameras stay competitive for longer time because the updated features are comparable with their competitors' newer models. Being able to sell existing models will bring them more profits than producing (and selling) new models.
Of course there's a limit the new firmware can do. At some point the manufacturers have to replace the old models with the new ones, but this cycle will be longer and that helps bring the cost down, which is good for everyone.

Bob Blaylock said:

Isn't it better not to release the camera to market in the first place, with substandard firmware that gives substandard performance, just to make the consumers think the manufacturer is doing them a favor by later releasing the better firmware that the product should have had to begin with?

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Bob here. I say do it right the first time. one time, first time. everyone gets all the features and performance than to half azz it and release the product just to get it out and to sell. I dont want a firmware to fix anything or to upgrade anything. I want it all, one time, first time. what they do lack is more controls for video on the D750.

you see it more and more today where they release things then release firmwares or patches later. I will even point to samsung who have a bad habit of releasing a phone model then a short while after release one with a faster processor or upgraded hardware inside. so the loyal clients who pluck down money early get screwed and then the ones who wait, get a better phone later on with less bugs and maybe even a discount.
thats not cool.

There's no such thing as standard or substandard.
There's no such thing as "do it right" or "do it wrong".
Every product has certain features that meet certain needs. There's no product that makes everyone happy.
The market will decide whether a product is sellable.
Who does not want to update the firmware free of charge???

I don't know if anyone remembers the soon to be released "new firmware with lots of spiffy things" for the D750?

That should indicate what the result will be of any campaign in favor of "user-suggested firmware".

rocketman122 said:

I have to agree with Bob here. I say do it right the first time. one time, first time. everyone gets all the features and performance than to half azz it and release the product just to get it out and to sell. I dont want a firmware to fix anything or to upgrade anything. I want it all, one time, first time. what they do lack is more controls for video on the D750.

Click to expand...

I don't consider it reasonable to expect that all bugs in a product will be found before it is brought to market and put into the hands of consumers, or that a manufacturer might, after that point, realize that there is some new feature they could have added in firmware that they didn't think of until after that point. I expect that firmware updates are going to happen.

But what the OP is asking for would require manufacturers—either intentionally or as a result of sloppiness and laziness—to be selling a substandard product to consumers, only to fix it later. There may even be a place for that; consumers, in exchange for serving as beta testers, could be sold the product as a considerably discounted price, compared to what the finished product is expected to sell for. But I think that a customer who isn't given such a discount, on that basis, has every reason and right to expect that he is buying a finished product, which the manufacturer has taken every reasonable measure to assure is as complete and bug-free as they can make it.

Bob Blaylock said:

I don't consider it reasonable to expect that all bugs in a product will be found before it is brought to market and put into the hands of consumers, or that a manufacturer might, after that point, realize that there is some new feature they could have added in firmware that they didn't think of until after that point. I expect that firmware updates are going to happen.

But what the OP is asking for would require manufacturers—either intentionally or as a result of sloppiness and laziness—to be selling a substandard product to consumers, only to fix it later. There may even be a place for that; consumers, in exchange for serving as beta testers, could be sold the product as a considerably discounted price, compared to what the finished product is expected to sell for. But I think that a customer who isn't given such a discount, on that basis, has every reason and right to expect that he is buying a finished product, which the manufacturer has taken every reasonable measure to assure is as complete and bug-free as they can make it.

Click to expand...

if were talking about nikon, I have no mercy for them. their track record for QC is crap at best. they used to do it right, first time. no wonder theyre down from revenue to revenue. I think its 10+ quarterly revenues and stock being the lowest in 3.5 years. that says it all. D600 SB900 D800 24-70 AFS D750. all QC issues. thats a lot of money there.

There's also little economic benefit to such an idea.

Improving people's current cam all the time only lengthens the period before they buy a new one. You can update firmware to get rid of problems but to improve performance isn't a very good economic decision when you're selling the hardware.

It's not different from those cell phone carrier companies. They slap you silly with discounts and advantages when you're not a customer while they throw you a bone once every blue moon if you are a customer already because the reality is; if you're already using them, you'll probably keep using them no matter what.

It's the same with Nikon. If we buy a cam, that's likely the cheaper part of all the money we will invest, or have invested into them, and odds are high we will buy one of their new cams too. Improving the gear we already bought won't make any difference to that.

The only difference is that they invest money which has no return in profit. Capitalism does not jibe with altruism.

It would be identical to doing a photo-shoot with a customer and then every three months taking better shots than the previous for free.