Why does Nikon does not come up with a NEX/X100/Leica equivalent?

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>I think Sony has a big future with their NEX type of cameras. They have opened up the door to third party lens manufacturers and they will probably be getting, in much shorter time, a very complete and line of lenses they could not develop themselves before the competition gets there. The beautiful Fuji X100 has been a great succes, even though it is expensive and has a fixed focal length. Then there is Leica that will announcing an APC camera (same mount) priced between M9 and X1. Not to mention the m4/3 success. Isn't that all indicative of the great market opportunity?<br /> I really do not understand Nikon. They should have been able to detect this market potential long ago. And worst still (if the rumor is right), their coming mirrorless, which should aim at this segment, will be heavily cropped (this is something I really hope is not true).<br /> How long ago were the Ricohs and Epson already successful?<br /> Why wouldn't Nikon offer us a retro style SMALL metal body interchangeble lens Rangefinder/Mirrorles with an ~APC sized sensor? And a set of 4 lenses: 1 all-around consumer zoom, and 4 SMALL primes? For example: 24,28,45,80mm (equiv) f/~2 mm (28 and 45 pancake anyone?). Is that too much to ask for?<br /> I am not trying to say developing such a camera is simple. It sure takes years of development and lots of investment. But I have almost no doubt Nikon wound be able to do this if they wanted to.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Nikon is slooow and conservative...not that's all bad. Look elsewhere if you want something that's more cutting edge. No one is stopping ya. I have a few cameras on my want list and none are from nikon...</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Canon had three film bodies that had no mirror flap to capture a image.</p>

<p>Sony now has a pair of bodies that share the same "no mirror flap." Sony did not invent the concept...</p>

<p>Nikon, may or may not get into the design contest. Currently, for the digital capture of most images, a Nikon D-SLR does the job.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I think Sony has a big future with their NEX type of cameras."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's debatable whether Sony has a big future in the digital photography market with anything other than sensors made to spec for other camera companies, and their own brand niche cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The beautiful Fuji X100 has been a great succes..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's debatable as well. I like the concept but haven't bought one. Ken Rockwell bought one and seems enthusiastic about it... for the moment. Until the latter influence the former (like me) off the fence, it's doubtful a niche camera like the X100, no matter how appealing to some, can be deemed a "great success".</p>

<p>As Leslie observed, Nikon has been a conservative company, now slow to adapt to paradigm shifts but apparently wary of bleeding edge technology. That's probably served them well enough in the real marketplace, if not with web ruminants (who may not actually contribute significantly to the actual marketplace anyway).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I think the market analysis on the great success of the NEX and X100 is a bit off. Leica does well - for being Leica, which is very niche. Ricoh and Epson... niche cameras. If anything, the Olympus Pen does well, as do some Panasonic m4/3 models. But, as far as I know, the D3100 and D5100 outsell the NEX bodies in most parts of the world.<br>

<br /> That is not defending Nikon, yes, sure they should be out looking for new markets and trying to expand. But it is not at all yet said that these markets are now found by Sony or Fuji. Maybe there are novel ideas in the work we simply have no idea of yet. In the meanwhile, Nikon sells an incredible amount of cameras and a lot of lenses too. More than Fuji, and I believe more than Sony if one discounts the compact cameras. So Nikon can't be that wrong either.<br>

<br /> Another thing to consider: don't confuse your/our own wishes for the wishes of the market. This forum is full of people really devoted to photography (professionally or as a hobby), which makes our wishlists a bit tainted. The mass market is different, and they're mostly Nikon's bread and butter. Nikon does not and cannot please us all, and that does not mean they're wrong. It just means that made a business choice.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>I think a lot of us wonder the same but I can only assume it is a business decision i.e. they don't consider the potential profits to be worth the investment. It would be nice to have a small APS-C body, with a couple of dedicated lenses, and an adaptor for F mount lenses. Still, there's nothing stopping you buying a non Nikon product such as a 4/3 camera ...</p>

[lachaine]

<p>They are not now nor have they ever been into making toys for boys with flash in the pan temporary appeal. That's what I've always liked about Nikon. The cameras may not be as flashy, but they are solid, reliable and predictable.</p>

<p>We can all play around with new concepts (some of which aren't that new), retro toys and what not, but when it comes down to actually taking pictures in any kind of circumstance, there is nothing like a single lens reflex camera to get the job done.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have concedered the purchase of the Fuji X100. EVF solves my filter issues but I would use the camera while hiking and would like a better focal length selection. Fortunately BandH can not keep them in stock so temptation is low. I use Capture NX so I would have different software also. If Nikon made a FX EVF with the F-mount and updated there wide primes I might have no choice at all and to put a dent in the wallet. I don't know how Lieca stays in business, people with more money then sense I guess. I had a M3 and M6 when I was using film other rangefinders as well. Really like the Mamiya 7 except for the filter issue.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<blockquote>

<p>The beautiful Fuji X100 has been a great succes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Define "great success." Selling more than you thought you would? Selling more than a competitor? It's a niche product although very popular on Internet discussion forums. I bet it's been outsold by any Nikon model even the D3X or strange Coolpix with a projector.</p>

<p>Nikon released their latest financial numbers yesterday. Operating income up 94%. DSLR sales growth predicted at 26%. Whatever they are doing it seems to be working.<br>

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm#y2012</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And worst still (if the rumor is right), their coming mirrorless, which should aim at this segment, will be heavily cropped (this is something I really hope is not true).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? I actually hope the rumored 2.7X crop <strong><em>IS</em></strong> true. The Sony NEX may be a small body but the lenses are huge. The newest (announced but unavailable) Micro 4/3 bodies are small but if you use the kit zooms they won't fit in a pants pocket. The Nikon with perhaps an even smaller sensor and therefore smaller lenses may actually fit. </p>

<p>Someone could come back and say "I don't care if it fits in my pocket" and that's fine but at that point why not just buy a Sony NEX or Micro 4/3 body? I would prefer that companies make <em>different</em> products aimed at different market segments than the all make the same type of thing. Does your small body <em>have</em> to be made by Nikon? I have 7 Nikon (D)SLRs and point and shoots from Canon and Panasonic. I own 3 rangefinders from Leica, Cosina/Voigtlander (with 5 lenses), a Hasselblad V series and 3 lenses, Rolleicord, and even a Holga. </p>

 

[bruce_brown]

<p>Just to throw more into the mix ... look at the NEW Sony NEX 3a ... slightly less than an inch thick ... a 16mp APS-C sensor (roughly the same as Nikon D7000) ... in camera HDR ... in camera panorama stiching ... RAW ... interchangable lenses ... All this and a non-existant or crappy veiwfinder ... they are doing some cutting edge stuff, but they are not there yet. Nikon, I think, is edging towards the concept ... the 'virtual controls for scenes' on the D7000 looks to be out of the Sony book, as the whole NEX series is all virtual controls on screen ... they have cleaned up the body and removed almost ALL the buttons, switches, and gee-gaws from the camera body ... very pocketable with the pancake lens ... and VERY travel worthy, almost. BTW, I don't sell 'em ... I'm pretty much NIK all the way ... I'm just watching them out of my non-dominant eye.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>None of us knows exactly what Nikon has planned for the future - and even if any of us did - we'd be bound by NDA's and attorney's orders up the ying-yang. So they may well have one ready and raring to go - just waiting for the right time to release it. </p>

<p>The X100 - isn't exactly knocking every one dead that uses it - check out Thom Hogan's review of it on Google + or on his site (ByThom.com) - they have fixed some of the issues that he had/has with it but there are others that go beyond a firmware fix. </p>

<p>And as I pointed out in a response to his review - the limiting factor of the Fuji for me is the fixed lens with no interchangeability. </p>

<p>As for the Leica's - There are a few photographers that I know who will shell out $6 - $7k for a digital camera. Very few. And those are the ones using D3x's, Canon 1DS, etc... not digital rangefinders. </p>

<p>If Nikon were to release a retro range finder / digital - with interchangeable lens and picture quality that meets or beats the x100 - i'd seriously consider it. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[marc_rochkind]

Thom Hogan has written extensively on this in the last month or so.

 

The leading mirrorless companies don't have much else. As Walt points out above, Nikon has a lot else, including a

clear lead in consumer DSLRs.

 

There has been no need for them to intoduce a mirrorless. That said, word has is that they are going to introduce one,

probably this month. Read Thom Hogan's article for why the 2.7 sensor makes a lot of sense.

 

(I prefer m4/3 for its wide selection of lenses from different makers.)

[sebastian_ochoa2]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Define "great success."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Fujifilm announced on Saturday that it has been overwhelmed with orders for the just-released FinePix X100, and cannot keep up with demand for the camera" the published comment is based on a press release by Fuji: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://fujifilm.jp/information/articlead_0088.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, as far as I know, the D3100 and D5100 outsell the NEX bodies in most parts of the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that is most probably true, buy It does not have anything to do with my question. Nikon is able to produce excellent DSLR's and they are doing very well in that segment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Nikon released their latest financial numbers yesterday.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I had seen that. Actually, operating income, consolidated general from q1 went up 226.4% against q1 2010, imaging products went 12% up, and operating income on imaging products went up 222%.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why? I actually hope the rumored 2.7X crop IS true. The Sony NEX may be a small body but the lenses are huge. The newest (announced but unavailable) Micro 4/3 bodies are small but if you use the kit zooms they won't fit in a pants pocket. The Nikon with perhaps an even smaller sensor and therefore smaller lenses may actually fit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you find the Leica and the X100 large? Do you find Leica lenses large? Examples that a large sensor small camera system are possible. I agree with you on your point about the NEX lenses (big and few), and that stops me buying one now. That is why I mentioned they opened up to 3rd party manufacturers and the chance to have very nice lenses on that camera. There are some pics floating on the web with Zeiss primes on that mount and they are not very large. m4/3 is very nice, they have small fast and good primes. The two things with that sensor are high iso noise (right now) and DOF (per se). The 2.7 crop will most probably be much worse on the first, and definitely much worse on the second.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...retro toys and what not, but when it comes down to actually taking pictures in any kind of circumstance, there is nothing like a single lens reflex camera to get the job done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Humm... ever heard about Leica? How about the considerable number of photographers (not sunday kids/flower shooters) that have used Leica? I don't have the slightest interest to debate this point, it does not make any sense, because each camera has is strengths and its place. Are Leica and the X100 toys, were the Contax and Mamiya rangefinders also toys?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The X100 - isn't exactly knocking every one dead that uses it - check out Thom Hogan's review of it on Google + or on his site (ByThom.com)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. I read Hogan's review a few days ago trying to figure out the fuzz about the X100. As soon as I found out that it has a fixed 23mm/f2 lens, equivalent to a 35mm slight wide angle on FX, I pretty much stop reading. I am certainly not interested in a camera that has no interchangeable lenses, and worse yet, the lens that is permanently fixed on the camera is not a zoom. 35mm is a useful focal length, but I can't just use 35mm all the time.</p>

<p>Additionally, the video capability without a zoom lens makes little sense.</p>

<p>Asking people to define what this "great success" on the X100 is the right question.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Bruce,<br>

i very much agree with you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> All this and a non-existant or crappy veiwfinder ... they are doing some cutting edge stuff, but they are not there yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nex is not yet there, but it has great potential and I think they CAN have great success. The biggest problem now are lenses and camera interface (including VF).</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<blockquote>

<p>Precisely. I read Hogan's review a few days ago trying to figure out the fuzz about the X100. As soon as I found out that it has a fixed 23mm/f2 lens, equivalent to a 35mm slight wide angle on FX, I pretty much stop reading. I am certainly not interested in a camera that has no interchangeable lenses, and worse yet, the lens that is permanently fixed on the camera is not a zoom. 35mm is a useful focal length, but I can't just use 35mm all the time.<br /><br />Additionally, the video capability without a zoom lens makes little sense.<br /><br />Asking people to define what this "great success" on the X100 is the right question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think you (and others here) mix success (=it has sold well) with desirability/versatility/appropriateness of the camera. I too find the camera is WAY to limited with its fixed focal lenght, as I wrote before. And the point is really that EVEN THOUGH the camera is so limited, it has sold in quantities that have surprised even Fuji.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sebastian,<br /> Saying that Nikon selling a lot of DSLRs has got nothing to do with your question is silly, sorry. It has everything to do with it. They cannot afford to shoot themselves in the foot. Anything APS-C / interchangable lens / small will threaten their D3100 and D5100 sales. So they cannot "just jump in", they have to secure their bottomline - at the moment, given their financial results, they are doing that. That's why 2.7x crop makes sense, since it will not threaten their DSLR entry level models, and yet open a piece of market.<br />And don't think Leica sells that many cameras. Leica sells many cameras at the moment to Leica standards - which is peanuts in the Nikon/Canon/Sony world. The fact that many photographers used them, does not mean a single thing to Nikon. The fact that the X100 sold out only identifies that Fuji did not expect many people to go for this $1200 camera. It is a success, but in raw number of units sold, it does not come close to the consumer DSLRs. There are currently vastly more people using a Nikon than there are Leica users or X100. That matters to Nikon, those people will upgrade, buy accesories and need additional services.</p>

<p>You are projecting your wishes as a thing that Nikon must do. But don't confuse your wishlist with market demand. And market demand will dictate how Nikon assigns its resources.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>And the point is really that EVEN THOUGH the camera is so limited, it has sold in quantities that have surprised even Fuji.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you tell us how many X100 Fuji has sold to date (e.g. up to the end of July or June), and how many did they expect to sell? Moreover, it would be great to know how much R&D investment has Fuji spent on developing such camera? Are they even making money from the X100?</p>

<p>Vague adjectives and descrptions such as "great success", "selling surprisingly well" etc. are meaningless without actual numbers. Please specify where Fuji provides such numbers.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>I don't think a crystal ball is required to see that cameras are shrinking, and increasingly in direct competition with phone cams. Cameras are going to get smaller, better, with much higher MP numbers with smaller (very different) sensors, less noise -- and mirrorless. That's not to say that the DSLR is going to disappear, or that this is the time for Nikon to jump onto that burgeoning bandwagon. It's still in its infancy.</p>

<p>I think the X100 has to be regarded as a pilot run for the concept. Aging prosumers may want the nostalgic pseudo-Leica look and metal skin, but by now, we should all be used to plastic as a perfectly viable material for cameras. If Fuji think there's a market there, more X100s will be made, and certainly, a somewhat less expensive model, and one with a zoom. Interchangeable lenses can't be far behind.</p>

<p>If there was sufficient demand, I am sure Nikon could make an able competitor to the X100, maybe something along the lines of a 35/28 ti, but digital. For me, something like an LX3/LX5, but with a bigger sensor, more MPs and far better high ISOs would be ideal.</p>

<p> </p>

[starvy]

<p>This is still a niche market. Nikon can expect its own brand of followers to but a few bodies if they were to delve into this area but I don't think that is where Nikon is heading. From a business perspective, any such camera would only have a limited following. The new photographer who is not so caught up in prestige badges might not want to buy an expensive offering from Nikon.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<blockquote>

<p>None of us knows exactly what Nikon has planned for the future - and even if any of us did - we'd be bound by NDA's and attorney's orders up the ying-yang. So they may well have one ready and raring to go - just waiting for the right time to release it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, and i hope they come up with something. Their experience and tradition might allow them to bring a introduce mature product.</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>You decided to lump in various different posts into one reply. </p>

<p>Regarding Leica, I said I own 3 Leica compatible bodies and 5 lenses. I love them and will probably get a Sony NEX-7 just for those lenses. It is still too large to fit in my pocket and carry with me all the time.</p>

<p>Regarding the X100, since we are quoting Thom Hogan, his Google Plus page says that the X100 was developed as a skunkworks project and they showed the prototyle at Photokina in fall of 2010. They had no plans to make it but were surprised at the reaction. That's one of the reasons why the firmware is so sketchy. Read dpreview's list of firmware issues if you want tons of details.</p>

<p>As others have said, show us the Fuji sales numbers. Rolls Royce may say "Sales exceeded our predictions." They could have sold 2000 cars instead of 1000. Even with the high price its still not much compared to Toyota or GM.</p>

<p>Smaller companies and brands can thrive in niches. The big companies could build similar products but they almost always want a higher ROI (Return on Investment)</p>

<p>You continue to mention NEX and M4/3. I think both are interesting in various ways. Why don't you just go and buy one of them? It's clear that Nikon is NOT going to make what you want.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I, for one, am very glad that those days Nikon used to make a lot of niche products such as the FM3a, 45mm/f2.8 P, etc. are long gone. A healthy company is one that makes a lot of popular products and some high-end products that help define the company's image. To that end, Nikon is mostly on the right track; they have just announced their financials: <a href="http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm#y2012">http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/index.htm#y2012</a></p>

<p>Most likely, Nikon will have their own mirrorless camera line, but that is with interchangable lenses. At least to me, something like a Fuji X100 that has a permanent lens that is not even a zoom makes absolutely no sense. I sure am glad that Nikon is not producing anything like it.</p>

<p>Seriously, any potential Nikon mirrorless camera is likely not going to be compatible with the F mount. If some Leica, Sony NEX, or Fuji X100 meets your needs, why don't you just buy those? There is no point to hope for something from Nikon because either way, it is not compatible with any existing Nikon cameras and lenses.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>Walt,<br>

<br /> sorry for lumping all those answers in only one post...<br>

<br /> I found this regarding numbers:<br>

<br /> Q26 : the expected sales figures have it?<br /> A26 : We hope that within the next year, global sales to reach 100,000 units. China sales reach 20,000 units.<br>

<br /> This comes from a fuji press conference in feb. 2011. Around march they announced they were surprised with the market reaction.<br /> Now, reading Thom Hogan, nikon should be selling arround 3.5 to 3.8m D-SLRs. So yes 100K is a lot less than 3.5m, but you are taking one model of one brand and comparing it with all nikon D-SLRs. And that for a model (X100) I agree is far from been able to be anyones cup of tea (price, fixed lens, firmware, etc).<br>

<br />But my main point is that I am not concentrating on the X100. It was just one example for a market segment defined by a large sensor in a small camera. If you investigate here, you will see for example that the panasonic g1 sold more than twice units than nikon d3000s in Japan in 2009. (the first introduced in may the second in july). If you look here http://m43photo.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html you will see how m4/3 compete directly with dslrs in Japan and how the japanese market responded to the introduction of m4/3's (compare 2008 to 2009).<br>

<br /> Look also here for some interesting comparisons:<br /> http://dslrphoto.com/dslr/japan-top-10-dslr-camera-sales-ranking-in-august-2010---3-sony-nex-5,19064.html (other months available as well).</p>

<p>Finally, my question here is not "Should I buy a m4/3 or wait Nikon offers something similar?" My question here is why Nikon has not shown interest in a market that is doing very well. The links I posted confirm that. Why is it for you so clear that Nikon "is NOT going to make" the kind of camera I am discussing?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Nikon as conservative company: why did Nikon issue the S3 2000 rangefinder? Now <em>that </em>was even more bizarre that anything Fuji have ever done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At least to me, something like a Fuji X100 that has a permanent lens that is not even a zoom makes absolutely no sense</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It makes perfect sense to me. Very fast, top-quality optic and small size. I'd have one if it wasn't so darned expensive!</p>