Is it Possible for Nikon?

<p>After the announcement of latest Nikon's financial results and their decision to cut their future full year forecast - reason being the not expected, poor sales of mirrorless cameras in US and Europe and the general shrinking of the compact cameras sales - some thoughts crossed my mind...<br /><br />- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know that they ware late in entering the market of mirrorless?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know thet their mirrorless product were nothing special in comparison to the existing competition and a bit overpriced when introduced?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know that they want something special in order to gain market share in the field of mirrorless product? (i.e. a model with full frame mirrorless capabilities - something that the competition doesn't have in their arsenal)<br />- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know that the market for compact cameras, eventually, will slow down for good due to the tremendous increase in sales of mobile phones with cameras?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know that a part of their customers, as far as mirrorless is concerned, prefered the competition, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, for obvious reasons?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon ignores the size of the World Economical crisis?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon doesn't listen to what their customers are shouting for?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon believed they can sell what ever they want neglecting people's willings?<br />- Is it possible that Nikon made some huge errors?<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it possible that Nikon made some huge errors?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. It's also possible that anybody else do that. Any single company can bet on the wrong horse, so Nikon can as well. The rest of the questions all have the same answer, in as far they're based on facts, rather than on your opinion on the Nikon 1.</p>

<p>It is not a matter of what I believe and my opinion of Nikon 1 Wouter, we're talking about facts and people's reception of the product. If I like it or not has nothing to do with the results that Nikon is facing today.</p>

<p>Facts?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>(i.e. a model with full frame mirrorless capabilities - something that the competition doesn't have in their arsenal)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean something like being the fastest AF and smallest mirrorless option, when it was introduced?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is it possible that Nikon doesn't listen to what their customers are shouting for?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What are those customers shouting for. then? Show me the facts what we are shouting for? <br /> Sorry, it is about your opinion and not about facts. Yes, the results today are what they are, and I do think Nikon has made a good few mistakes. But your list of questions is based on assumptions, opinions and not on data. Do not pretend otherwise.</p>

<p>Is it possible this is a rant, not a factual analysis?</p>

<p>In a rising market everyone looks like a genius, and in a falling market only geniuses look like geniuses. <em>Everyone</em> knew the compact market would get wacked by camera phones, so they started chasing the next<strong> BIG</strong> thing which they thought were mirrorless cameras. Camera makers all, to a certain extent, used a scatter shot model approach to figure out what people wanted. Mirrorless turns out to be sort of healthy in some markets, and a dud in many others. It turns out that in the North American and European markets mirrorless systems don't appear to have a high perceived value compared to the prices charged. They sell great when there are fire sales to clear out old stock, but not so much when introduced with high profit margins.</p>

<p>What was generally unexpected is the bottom falling out of camera sales in general. Nothing new here; there have been several major cycles in the past 40 years. Nikon probably isn't losing any more money on mirroless cameras than the other makers, and they probably wouldn't be losing any less money if the Series 1 cameras were done differently. What they'll do now is shift their resources into DSLRs, which is their most solid product. </p>

Actually, the v1 was awesome at $299.

I would have bought one if it had a f2

lens. I ended up with the rx100,

pocketable, better sensor, fastest at

28mm, VR and a zoom to boot for

$600...

 

At $900/800, it was a joke to many but

it sold okay to some buyers. Similarly,

nex is (maybe was?) a joke to many dslr forumers here...

<p>When I am talking about facts I mean the Nikon's financial results. These are facts not assumptions. They saw the clear and real "picture" And if you haven't heard about what Nikon's customers are shouting for years, like a D400 or a D700 updated for example, (they don't consider the D800 as being the real thing), no more coolpix, then there's nothing I can do...<br /> My post is not exclusively based on mirrorless failure. My questions aim to the general policy of the company. And no, I don't accept your point that they bet on the wrong horse as an excuse for them. They had all the time in the world and all the facts in front of them to be prepared...the horses were already running in that field...they should have presented a competitive "horse". And as the results proved they didn't, no matter what you believe for Nikon 1 or not. I, myself was never in favorite on mirrorless, no matter the brand. I am a DSLR shooter.</p>

<p>@ Stephen Lewis<br>

rant? Go to Nikon Site and see their financial results and <em>top executives statements</em> regarding what I have written above.</p>

<p>Nikon did the best they could with the info they had at the time. Remember that what we see now is the result of planning they did two or three years ago. Camera gear seems to be in an overall down cycle. I think it's a very small segment of the population that wants a "real" camera, as most people, maybe >95%, only use a camera to take family snapshots etc. They don't need Nikons. Add to this that new models of camera gear no longer have real compelling improvements from the old--it seems to be leveling off. Nikon is simply caught up in several downward trends right now, the worst of which is probably a shrinking pool of customers.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Nikon <i>were</i> late to the party - so were Canon. They did do something different, rather than a "me too". The original price - for something that could be made quite cheaply and which was competing with high-end compacts - was a joke, but presumably someone felt it was justified. At the discount rate, I'm very happy with my V1 as a very specialist high-speed camera, but it's no substitute for a DSLR or a compact in the "high quality results" or "small enough to be convenient" senses - especially since I have the 14-42PZ lens on my GF2. But I'm probably not the target market for the 1 series. To be fair, mirrorless cameras have generally sold for more than low-end DSLRs, presumably partly because of reduced production volume and partly because people pay for the convenience.<br />

<br />

Canon are trying a more conventional approach with the Eos M. I'm not aware of it doing all that much better than the 1 series, though I've heard a few recommendations of it (again, at a discount). The problem with a big sensor - as Nikon were well aware with the 1-series - is that you need big lenses to get a useful focal length, which removes the size advantage of mirrorless. A 200mm lens on an Eos M isn't much more pocketable than a 200mm lens on an Eos 100. This worked okay for micro 4/3, but Nikon suffered from taking it a step too far with the crop factor (as did Pentax with the Q). They - and Pentax - were also susceptible to competition the compact market, notably the RX100. Not that the Nikon compact range has ever been class-leading (well, since the turn of the millennium).<br />

<br />

If the problem had an easy solution, I'm sure everyone would be doing it. Panasonic and (to a lesser extent) Olympus didn't have successful DSLR systems to try to retain compatibility with, and didn't have customers that would be so dismissive of small sensors - and the 4/3 sensor format isn't <i>that</i> small. Now, if someone works out how to make a full frame diffractive optics 28-300 lens that folds down to the size that will fit in a pocket, I'm sure we'll see some different cameras appear.</p>

<p>Smart phones are the new way everybody is taking pictures. It's never going to go back to the way it was.</p>

<p>Connectivity is where it's at. Nikon had better get wireless connectivity in every single camera product.</p>

Nikon is a conservative company. It

relies on optics mostly. They have

never been innovative with anything.

Not AF, IS, EVF, face detection, other

features, etc...

 

 

Nikon users don't want any features.

They shoot RAW and process them

with PS...I am even surprised they

went with auto ISO and live view:)

The last Nikon product I went crazy for was a d700. That was also my last Nikon purchase...

<p>Bruce Rubenstein said:<br /> "<em>What they'll do now is shift their resources into DSLRs, which is their most solid product</em>."<br /> This is exactly what I believe they should have done Bruce. This is their backbone of sales. Please read below what the President member of the board, Mr. Makoto Kimura said:<br /> <em>For the Imaging Company, it is crucial that we determine how best to adapt our strategies in response to market changes, particularly in terms of new products and product lineups. <strong>The rapid penetration of smartphones is causing the compact digital camera market to shrink.</strong> <strong>Previously, cameras and smart devices were not direct competitors.</strong> However, in the current market structure in which these products are competing, we must examine closely the concepts on which our compact digital camera offerings should be based. <strong>Thus, when it comes to interchangeable lens-type digital cameras, we need to question our ability to offer truly innovative functions and performance.</strong></em><br>

Does that ring any bells?<em><strong><br /></strong></em></p>

<p>This might be a time to bring up Thom Hogan's ongoing rant that Nikon makes its money out of DX (not FX) cameras, but they've released very few DX lenses. (On the plus side, they <i>have</i> just announced a DX lens. Against that, it's yet another slow street-sweeper zoom, not filling one of the gaps in the DX line-up. Fortunately, Sigma. Which is something I wouldn't have said a few years back.)</p>

<p>I suggest people take a look at Thom Hogan's article on his mirrorless site: <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-problems-continu.html">http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-problems-continu.html</a><br>

(IMO, Hogan is, at best, mediocre as far as predicting future Nikon products; I might even say he is quite poor at that. But I am referring to the facts in his article.)</p>

<p>Essentially, mirrorless is not doing well outside of Asia, from any brand. I live in the San Francisco area and see very few people use mirrorless cameras, from any brand, including Olympus, which heavily depends on them and is struggling to break even.</p>

<p>Overall, I don't think Nikon is doing all that poorly in a tough economy world wide. IMO, Nikon's choice to use the tiny CX sensor for their Nikon 1 mirrorless camera is likely a mistake. That is why I own none of that, or for that matter I don't own any mirrorless cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, the v1 was awesome at $299.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but also at $299, Nikon is lucky not to lose a lot of money on the V1.</p>

<p>Nikon introduced the D700 back in 2008 because they needed an "affordable, $3000" FX body, even thought it hurt D3 sales. That was why they quickly upgraded the D3 to a D3S with an improved sensor, but they kept the D700 as it was for a bigger product differentiation. Back then, the so called "out cry" was that 12MP wasn't enough on the D700.</p>

<p>Today, Nikon has two, actually three, FX DSLRs below $3000: D800 (and D800E) plus D600. If they introduced a successor to the D700, they would have three (or actually four) FX models competing against themselves within a narrow price range in the still small FX market segment.</p>

<p>Likewise, the D300 was introduced at $1800 at the same time as the D3 ($5000) back in 2007. Today, the D300/D300S price range is occuppied by the D600. Once again, you can't have too many products in the same price category, especially when the DSLR market is no longer under rapid growth.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know thet their mirrorless product were nothing special in comparison to the existing competition and a bit overpriced when introduced?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it possible that your opinion of the Nikon 1 series is <strong>not</strong> based on actually using one of the cameras?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- Is it possible that Nikon didn't know that a part of their customers, as far as mirrorless is concerned, prefered the competition, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, for obvious reasons?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it possible that the competition, as far as mirrorless is concerned, is also having to resort to fire sales (just as Nikon did with the V1)?</p>

<p>I do think that we're unlikely to see a "D750" with a D4 sensor in a D800 body (and, presumably, a fast frame rate). I appreciate that people may want one, but the D600 and D800 are so close to providing that option that I don't see much market. What I hear most people wanting is a budget "almost D4" (in the way a D700 was barely inferior to the D3), and without a "D4s" to differentiate, I can't see the gain for Nikon; the portion of D700 customers who wouldn't be perfectly satisfied with an existing model or a used D3s has to be small. That's not to say that a D600 with a D800 AF module may be long in coming, but bear in mind that - however good the 5D3's autofocus - the D600 is competing with the 6D, and even the D7000's AF module is a world ahead of 6D/5D2 class.<br />

<br />

I believe there's a place for people who want a high-end DX camera, either for reasons of pixel density or portability, even if it's priced more than a D600 - there are reasons to want to buy such a thing where a D7100 won't cut it and a D600 solves the wrong problem. However, I can't argue that it would be two alternatives in the same price bracket. You could argue that the 1 series and the low-end DSLRs have the same problem, so selling two different devices at the same price isn't impossible, but I guess it's up to Nikon's marketing department to decide whether they can make the sales case for a "D400" as well as the existing line, and whether they can sell enough to the niche who want it to make up for the production costs. Technically, I'm sure they can stick a big buffer in a D7100 and wrap it in shrunk D800 ergonomics; whether the result is what people want and whether it would suck sales from more profitable models is beyond my remit. I still think Nikon <i>could</i> produce one of these, and it could sell. Whether they <i>will</i> is another matter.</p>

<blockquote>Is it possible that your opinion of the Nikon 1 series is not based on actually using one of the cameras?</blockquote>

<p>I'm not going to defend everything that Panayotis said, but I own a V1. For me, describing the original launch price as "a bit overpriced" is a huge understatement. They priced it like an enthusiast model, but gave it consumer handling and (mostly) sensor characteristics. I'd be interested to know how many F-mount lens adaptors have been sold. I'm very happy to have mine, but it was only worth the discount price to me. Of course, it may be worth more to other people.</p>

<blockquote>Is it possible that the competition, as far as mirrorless is concerned, is also having to resort to fire sales (just as Nikon did with the V1)?</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, though they're also releasing more models and lenses than Nikon. I did buy my GF2 at a heavy discount, whereas my D800E was at original launch price. Still, as someone with a GF2 and a V1, the (older) GF2 is the camera that's more pleasant to use for general shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=189330">Dan Brown</a>, Aug 09, 2013; 09:24 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Smart phones are the new way everybody is taking pictures. It's never going to go back to the way it was.<br>

Connectivity is where it's at. Nikon had better get wireless connectivity in every single camera product.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is exactly right. I don't understand the camera companies making anything less than a DSLR or DSLR like camera. Back in the film days, most prints were 4x6 or less. Today the 4x6 print is an image posted on a website or sent by email. The camera in my phone is perfectly capable of taking those images. WHY would anyone buy another camera to carry around the duplicates the cell phone camera? It makes no sense to me and I don't know of anyone in my extended family that owns a dedicated camera. Not one. They all use their cell phones or iPods. A B17 flew into an airport near me least summer. I went to get a tour and take photos. It was a hoot watching people with iPads video taping the B17. </p>

<p>Nikon needs to have internet connectivity in EVERY phone. Not as an expensive add on. DSLR's need to be able to snap a photo and send it at the push of a button. Yes, I will still download my images and tweek them, but sometimes I just want a quick snap to send. This cost is minimal. </p>

<p>Consumer grade cameras are following film into non existence. </p>

<p>Later,<br>

Dan</p>

 

<p>The Nikon 1 was created to provide a small, fast camera which could AF track quickly, so that relative novices to photography could capture action sequencies, which is something that most if not all compact cameras struggle at, and certainly the large sensor mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras struggle at. Nikon figured this was something their customers wanted and they implemented it. When it was asked why Nikon didn't put a larger sensor into their mirrorless product, they said they couldnt' get the phase-detect on sensor to work well on larger sensors. We now have some attempts at other manufacturers in providing on sensor phase detect AF; e.g. Sony's latest SLT cameras have both mirror-based conventional phase-detect AF and on-sensor phase-detect, and Fuji X100s is a mirrorless fixed focal length camera with on sensor phase detect and contrast detect AF. But the SLTs use the conventional approach for tracking movement in bright light - when a part of the main sensor surface are is allocated to AF sensors this means the area of the adjacent image pixels is reduced and the AF sensors are much smaller than that of AF SLRs, thus they receive less light which is not so good for low light sensitivity of the AF system. I think this is the issue why Nikon couldn't put a large sensor in the 1 series cameras, and why the other manufacturers' implementations still don't work well, some years after the introduction of the 1 series. It just doesn't work well enough when you have low light and shallow depth of field (due to combination of large sensor / long focal lengths and large aperture lenses). Fuji X100s is better in AF than its predecessor, and certainly better than the Coolpix A, but it just isn't able to properly track moving subjects across the frame like our DSLRs can. All the big manufacturers are trying to solve this problem; who knows when they will get there. Even so, I still prefer a real-time optical viewfinder to EVF, but for some applications, a hybrid viewfinder solution might be preferable (manual focus may be easier with EVF). I like the X100s, but the AF technology isn't yet ready for prime time.</p>

<p>Once AF tracking of moving subjects works well with large sensored mirrorless cameras, I am sure Nikon will enter that market. They have many patents on both (AF for mirrorless cameras, lenses for large sensor mirrorless). </p>

<p>Nikon <em>has</em> innovated in DSLRs; currently their cameras have arguably the best sensors in the business; the highest end AF system has improved sensitivity in low light and it has been propagated down to the D7100 price class, and they have made many new lenses which fill in blanks that previously were missed by many. I.e. 80-400 AF-S, 70-200/4 AF-S, the f/1.8 and f/1.4 AF-S primes and so on. Looking at the quality of images from the D800 it is hard to justify a general claim of lack of innovation really. There are some things that should be improved ... I would like to see more user calibration options to the AF system; Sigma has been providing this for a few of their latest lenses through an USB dock. I would like to see AF-S 135/2, AF-S 180/2.8, AF-S VR 300/4, AF-S VR 400/4, and improved AF in the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. But I suspect good things come to those that wait a bit. Nikon has come very far from where they were 10 years ago.</p>

<p><em>> Is it possible that Nikon doesn't listen to what their customers are shouting for?</em><br /><em>> Is it possible that Nikon believed they can sell what ever they want neglecting people's willings?</em><br>

There may be some truth to the above contentions, but the thing below is not the answer.<br>

> <em>a model with full frame mirrorless capabilities</em><br>

What is it with this obsession with "full frame" mirrorless? If it is an argument that larger sensors have advantages, fine. Then why stop at 24x36? Demand even bigger sensors while you're at it. If the reason is that you want to use legacy SLR lenses on a mythical FF mirrorless, recall that said lenses are designed (by definition) for SLRs and thus cannot take full advantage of the new camera not having the big swinging SLR mirror: you still have the (now excessive) flange distance and the issues with wides and superwides. Seeing as Nikon has not gotten its act together on filling in a solid line of DX lenses I can't imagine them having the resources to make a new line of good "mirrorless" RF-type lenses covering 24x36. (Even if there was enough demand for such a product line to justify it economically, and I seriously doubt there is such demand.)<em><br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thought the Nikon V1 was an odd duck from the start. Cell phone people are happy with where they are at. Pretty good photos with facebook connectivity instantly. The King Kong camera enthusiasts do not want it either. Basically it does not fit anywhere, it's ugly and it costs way to much. <br>

So now we have the cell phone group that wants connectivity and instant sharing, The mirrorless crowd like me that wants big performance, prints and a packable light camera and the DSLR bunch that wants the full deal, prints, and a loud clanking mirror. So a crystal ball is needed to figure out what to do. I do not have one. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is it with this obsession with "full frame" mirrorless? If it is an argument that larger sensors have advantages, fine. Then why stop at 24x36? Demand even bigger sensors while you're at it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I often wonder this myself. There is no question the larger sensors provide tangible benefits in the quality of the picture (if that is what you are after). I know for my film photography today, I vastly prefer the images out of my 6x6 MFs, than those out of my 35mm cameras. On the other hand, the 35mm is so much nicer to handle. My point is that the popularity of 24x36 in the film days may not just be an accident of history. It might just be that is the sweet spot of the size versus IQ and DoF compromises people are willing to accept, and makes for challenges that are reasonable to handle from an engineering/technical viewpoint and therefore reasonably affordable. I am not an optics engineer, and haven't read up on the mechanics and physics of sensor to lens couplings, but since a 24x36 sensor can use a wider lens than a APS-C sensor to get similarly out of focus areas, would that lead to smaller lenses?</p>

<p>I like following the business of photo equipment. I was sure caught off guard of how fast smart phones with built in photo sensors could get so good for everyday, non professional, photography use. My adult children use iPhones and some of their imagery is amazing simply because they have the phones with them all the time. </p>