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

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sebastian, the Japanese market is known to strongly prefer smaller cameras. The Nex and m4/3rd cameras are vastly more popular there than they are in America and Europe. So pointing to those figures is not telling a whole world-wide story. Not at all.</p>

<p>It is clear that you think Nikon should do it. Many here now have given solid business reasons why Nikon is unlikely to do it the way you want them too. You do not seem very open to those arguments, solid as they are. Nikon is not out there to fill a niche, it's not their market. They don't have the resources to go after that, and they have a huge market share to protect (unlike Olympus, Panasonic, Leica and Fuji, who were in a position they could only gain), and they have shareholders wanting to see success, all too often in the short term. They're a business. You can wish otherwise and continue to argue against it, but in the end.... business decisions for a large volume market.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>If you come from an SLR background the X100 is probably going to look some some sort of strange aberration that 'violates basic principles'. If you've spend much time with rangefinders, it starts to make a lot more sense. Fuji has remembered something that everyone except Leica seems to have forgotten - traditional controls, a prime lens, and an optical viewfinder make a very effective combination for going out and taking pictures. None of the other 'mirrorless' cameras even offer a decent built-in finder - you either get an EVF, a G11-style peephole, or the sort of bolt-on accessory finder last popular in the 1930s. Would an interchangeable lens 'X200' be even more attractive? Of course, but that doesn't mean there's not a serious market for the current version, not cheap by the standards of a D3100, but under half the price of a Leica 35/2 lens alone (add an M9 body, and the Leica is 7x the price).</p>

<p>Is a range of focal lengths, as Shun says, 'fundamental to serious photography'? Certainly most of us will want this choice, but not necessarily in every camera we own. It's not so very long ago that Phil Greenspun and others on this site were advocating compact film cameras with 35mm primes rather than zooms as second (or third) cameras, and well-known photographers like Nan Goldin were fans of the Yashica T4. There's also a long tradition of sticking a 35mm lens on the front of your Leica and pretty much nailing it there. This combination, for artistic or pragmatic reasons, has seen a great deal of 'serious' use. Eisenstaedt used a 35 for '95%' of his work. David Alan Harvey has used a 35 for most of his:</p>

<p>http://betterphotography.in/2011/08/03/dream-lens-david-alan-harvey/</p>

<p>Alex Webb shot Istanbul and the Mexican border with a 35:<br>

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/istanbul<br>

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/crossings</p>

<p>Costa Manos shot his Boston project with a 35:<br>

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R9ACJFY</p>

<p>Stella Johnson's 'Al Sol' is a 15 year project shot with a 35:<br>

http://stellajohnson.com/events/media/johnson_LFI-03-2010.pdf</p>

<p>I don't really care what company's name badge appears on the front (it won't be F-mount, as noted above), but I'd like to see more cameras like the X100, and I hope Fuji is defining a new niche here. The rumours about Nikon's own mirrorless system don't sound terribly interesting so far, and I wonder if some of the efforts that have gone into the rather lacklustre Coolpix designs could have been better spent. Maybe there's some worthwhile territory between the top of the Coolpix range and the X100 - how about a 'P8000' with a half-decent optical finder and a bigger sensor?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To answer Leif's question about who says the X100 is for serious photographers, actually Leif himself said that by discussing the superiority of the X100's prime lens, etc. etc. That sure sounds like serious photography to me.</p>

<p>If that is not enough, the X100's $1200 price tag clearly indicates that is not a casual consumer camera. Consumers may spend $200 or $400 on a point and shoot or $600 on a D3100 with the 18-55 kit lens: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730210-REG/Nikon_25472_D3100_Digital_SLR_Camera.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730210-REG/Nikon_25472_D3100_Digital_SLR_Camera.html</a><br>

When you charge twice as much, the X100 is totally non-competitive in the consumer market. That price indicates that it has to be either for serious photographers or niche collectors/semi collectors. I wouldn't be so against it if Fuji priced the X100 at $500; at $1200, it makes absolutely no sense.</p>

<p>And please don't even mention Leica, which sells to a tiny elitist niche market. I am extremely glad that Nikon is nothing like Leica. And if you wonder, I bought my first and only Leica back in 1974 and still own that today, and that was 3 years before I bought my first Nikon camera.</p>

<p>Again, all indications suggest that Nikon will also enter the mirrorless market but with interchangeable lenses. I assume the announcement will come in the next few months, but I have no idea exactly when and also have no ideas about the specifications. Please do not discuss rumors about future Nikon products from various rumor sites, including rumors from Thom Hogan. Their rumors are frequently wrong and have little resemblance with reality.</p>

<p>Of course, regardless of what Nikon introduces, there will be people who are for it and people who are against it, but please at least debate that based on facts Nikon announces, not half truths from rumor sites.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>As far as I know there are no real collectors of digital cameras yet, but I guess the X100 appeals to several different groups, from 'serious' old-school photographers who might prefer a Leica (but are put off by the cost), to SLR users who want something more compact than their main camera in certain situations, to more casual purchasers who just like the retro design and can comfortably afford it (men of a certain age will feature heavily in the last group!).</p>

<p>I seem to have mentioned Leica again, but it's a little difficult to avoid the most obvious reference point of the X100 design when talking about the Fuji. It's precisely because Leica now only sells to a small affluent niche market that the X100, a 'cheap' camera by the rarefied standards of the M9, is interesting to many of us. The 'Leica club' was not really that exclusive in the film era, as you could pick up decades-old secondhand models that functioned almost identically to the current versions for about the price of a mid-range Nikon SLR. Now there's just the flawed (and still expensive) M8 for users on a budget. The X100 is arguably the 'luxury compact' that Leica, rather than Nikon, should be making (or at least sticking their name on). Instead we have the underwhelming (and more expensive) X1, yet another compact digital without a viewfinder.</p>

<p>So is any of this relevant to Nikon? We will indeed have to wait and see what sort of mirrorless system they come up with, though unless they do something dramatically different to most of their competitors it may be difficult to stifle a yawn (but I hope to be pleasantly surprised!). The current Coolpix lineup doesn't exactly raise expectations of innovation or excitement outside the dSLR range - the P7000, essentially a Canon G-series clone, is the only one of over a dozen models I could name before looking at the webpage. The last memorable Nikon non-SLR camera was (arguably) the 35Ti/28Ti, nearly two decades ago. A camera not that far in spirit from the X100...</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<blockquote>

<p>Many here now have given solid business reasons why Nikon is unlikely to do it the way you want them too. You do not seem very open to those arguments, solid as they are.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Solid arguments? I accepted the points Ilkka gave as a possible explanation, but if you mean the points that regard market analysis don't find them very solid. Most has been based on the X100, which is a pretty singular product.<br /> Sony went up to 17.9% of the international camera market (2010), thats 1% more than in 2009. Nikon went up 1.5% . Analysts interpret this way the increased share of Sony:<br /> “Sony’s and Samsung’s launching new mirror-less digital cameras helped them obtain more market share,” said Masahiko Ishino, an analyst at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co.<br /> http://www.lpmag.me/themes/2011/04/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models/<br /> I am in no way asserting Nikon is doing everything wrong. The numbers speak for themselves. But that does not mean that they could still be growing more.</p>

[leif_goodwin8]

<p>Shun Cheung said; "To answer Leif's question about who says the X100 is for serious photographers, actually Leif himself said that by discussing the superiority of the X100's prime lens, etc. etc. That sure sounds like serious photography to me."</p>

<p>I think there is some word play here. I would like an X100 style camera as a carry round for photographing friends etc, and I do not consider that sort of use to be 'serious photography' but I see no reason why IQ is not a concern. I am though speaking for myself.<br>

I tend to agree with Shun that Nikon should not compete head to head with the X100 simply because it is a limited market, and the X100 may well saturate it. As to whether a similar camera with interchangeable lenses is a good idea, that's a business decision for Nikon. And we are still waiting to see what the Nikon mirrorless camera will be like, a silk purse or a pig's ear.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I would like an X100 style camera as a carry round for photographing friends etc, and I do not consider that sort of use to be 'serious photography' but I see no reason why IQ is not a concern.</em></p>

<p>I agree. I photograph a lot of events and sometimes, when being around friends, it would be nice to be able to shoot in a more relaxed fashion with a small camera but I'm not willing to use a tiny-sensor point and shoot - the images are very noisy and there is no depth of field control to speak of. An X100 type camera would fit in perfectly for this situation. It satisfies my requirement for control of the exposure and focus while being very small (compared to a DSLR) and having good low light performance. A micro four thirds camera would also serve in this situation, but the X100 has the advantage of traditional exposure controls which are appealing to me (and the slightly larger sensor). Exposure control in a typical digital point and shoot camera (and those mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that I've played with) is too complicated and for many basic operations one has to go through a menu that is not intuitive to me. I think this may very well be why they priced it so high - because they know that there will be an audience who appreciate the mechanical controls. It is nice to be able to preset exposure without looking at the screen or even turning the camera on. And not having interchangeable lenses means I can focus on making pictures of the situation without being stressed about having to make some close-ups and so on. Fewer options => less stress and fumbling with the equipment. Just basic, simple pictures documenting the interaction between people and the location. I do not see the lack of interchangeable lenses fatal to this camera. It limits the applications but for this one task of documenting people and the location without introducing a large and obtrusive camera, it would work fine. Small market? Compact cameras with fast fixed focal length lenses were used in the past by many famous photographers, and there were many such models available. E.g. the Contax T3 (http://www.photo.net/equipment/contax/t3), Olympus Mu-2, Nikon 35Ti and so on. I think the market for a simple but high-quality camera is there.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree. I photograph a lot of events and sometimes, when being around friends, it would be nice to be able to shoot in a more relaxed fashion with a small camera but I'm not willing to use a tiny-sensor point and shoot - the images are very noisy and there is no depth of field control to speak of. An X100 type camera would fit in perfectly for this situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly! I hate point-and-shoots. Noisy as hell, and infinite depth-of-field. And as a result, I often have hardly any personal photos. I would absolutely love to own an X100. However, I may break down and settle for a Sony NEX instead due to the Fuji's rather hefty price tag. I swear, if Nikon built an X100 for about the price of a D3100 (don't worry, they won't), I bet they'd sell like hotcakes.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<blockquote>

<p>I swear, if Nikon built an X100 for about the price of a D3100 (don't worry, they won't), I bet they'd sell like hotcakes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree with both points!<br>

The main problem with the NEX is handling/VF/controls, but I think everyone has his own preferences here. I hope they change (some) of this. There should be a Zeiss 2.8/35 coming, although not small.<br>

I opened the discussion here regarding the market for small big sensor cameras. This has led me to take a closer look at the Fuji, and the more I think of it the more I like some points of this concept. This is clearly a very personal thing and I would not try to convince anyone about it. I like the 35mm focal length and I find it ideal for the type of photography I would be doing with it. In fact, if I bought a leica I would probably use it most of the time with a 35mm lens, only now and then with a 28mm, but I am certain I would never buy a leica unless I win the lottery. The biggest problem, other than the price tag of the X100, is that with a fixed lens body we are forced to buy a lens each time we upgrade the camera. While sensor technology might be now more mature, we are still seeing great advances in some aspects with every new generation.</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Sebastian said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The main problem with the NEX is handling/VF/controls, but I think everyone has his own preferences here. I hope they change (some) of this . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. Oh, I didn't say I would buy a NEX, and <em>like</em> it! The Sony NEX is great for my mom, but, of course, I would much rather have the more manual-ish X100. Just give me manual controls, a fast 35mm-equivalent lens (I don't <em>need</em> interchangeability--that's what my DSLRs are for), on an APS-C sized sensor, all, for under $800, and I'd be happy as a clam. Maybe I'll break down and get the X100, if and when they upgrade the firmware to address a few useability nits.</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>This is a fascinating post. I'm wondering how many of you have actually used an X100 or a Sony Nex. I use them both and don't miss using my DSLR at all.</p>

<p>I don't have any actual numbers, but I'd have to say the X100 has been a success...Fuji can't keep up with the demand. So, I'm going out on limb here and will say it's a huge success for Fuji.</p>

<p>Yes, the X100 is limited in its versatility compared to a DSLR, but so what. No one says you have to use a single camera for everything. And trust me, you can use both the X100 and the NEX system for more than "casual" photography.</p>

<p>As far as Nikon's rumored mirror-less system. If the specs are correct it's D.O.A.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Jim said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is a fascinating post. I'm wondering how many of you have actually used an X100 or a Sony NEX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've used both:</p>

<p>Sony NEX:</p>

<p>I like the lenses a available for it. I forced my mom to buy the top-of-the-line NEX, and both lenses (Sony plans to announce more NEX lenses soon). Its 1080p video is pretty neat, too. I especially like the fact that you can mount Nikkor DX/FX lenses on it with an available third-party adapter. The Sony NEX product line really packs a lot of imaging capability into a small package, and has helped to redefine the entire "point-and-shoot" product category. Fun and stealthy, although, as expected, very consumerish in its user interface.</p>

<p>Fuji X100:</p>

<p>I've played with my friend's X100 at work, and spent some time shooting with it. I really like it. My biggest gripe is that its focus-point selection is a bit awkward. Other than that, I really love it, and really, really want one.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I agree Ralph. The Fuji is a great little camera. It may be a niche product...but so is Leica and they sell pretty well...and make a fairly decent camera ;-)</p>

<p>Many photographers have no issue with the single lens option. And the price actually isn't bad. The sensor in the X100 is great....and coupled with a 23mm f2 lens of high quality...it's not a bad price. Does Nikon even make a 23mm f2 that costs less than the entire X100?</p>

<p>There seems to be a love/hate issue with the X100. Those who bought it, love it. Those that don't, feel a burning desire to announce to the world the brilliance of their decision not to buy it. Good for them. Now if they could just shut up about it and actually respond to the OP's question, that would great.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Dave said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Fuji is a great little camera. It may be a niche product . . . but so is Leica and they sell pretty well . . . and make a fairly decent camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your comments, Dave. Well, if the X100 is a niche camera, then me and a bunch of my friends are dead-center in that niche. I think Fuji got the design requirements spot-on. A 35mm-equivalent f/2.0 lens is perfect for 99.9% of the stuff I would shoot with this camera. I'm sure, nearly everyone who's ever coveted a pricey Leica rangefinder, will find the X100 a satisfying alternative.</p>

<p>As to OP's original question, I think I answered that earlier in the thread somewhere. Unfortunately, Nikon's "compact-pro" (I don't know what else to call this category) product development efforts appear to be going in a different direction. Why? Possibly because Nikon product managers made a strategic decision long ago to make a committment to a more "forward-thinking" product concept. They may have been trying to think so far "ahead" (i.e., "What is the next-generation product concept for a 21st century compact camera?) that they simply forgot to think a moment about the past.</p>

[tr_gleason]

<p>There are people out there who want to do photography that the P7000 can't handle, but the DSLR kits are excess in terms of weight (travel, older) or too obvious (street photographers, people shooting in questionable areas). Nikon could have buried Olympus Pen and Sony Nex if Nikon had jumped in. I've heard the Sony images are good, but the handling, to me, is awful. Olympus image quality is okay but the handling much better. I'm sure Nikon could have beat them by combing imaging and handling. If the crop factor is big, this will just lead people to Olympus or Sony (or Panasonic), or just go with the Canon G line and save money and weight.</p>

[sebastian_ochoa2]

<p>TR, I fully agree. That's why as must ask myself why they have not done it.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Well, I can't speak for the amateur crowd, because they seem to think differently than pros do in this here internet / Great Capture Club age, but I have now put over 10,000 clicks through my X100 in less than 3 months and it is freaking phenomenal! In fact, it is the best digital camera I have ever used, even more so than any Nikon. I say this because of the jpeg output is perfect, no BS raw needed, just nail the exposure like a good slide film like a pro does, press ready, end of story.<br>

So I don't really care what Thom Hogan has to say, he makes his living like most Internet Gear Review Heros, talking about gear, not using it. Same with that <strike>utterly talentless idiot</strike> Kelby, where would that poor sap be without the internet and photoshop.<br>

So if Nikon made a RF camera that could use M glass and maybe some nifty new Nikon in M size, I would most likely buy it because the Leica M digital bodies are overpriced toys that breakdown and Nikons simply are not. <br>

But that X100, if you are a great photographer that loves to work with a 35, it is peerless at this point...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Daniel, could you not have said "I use the X100 and like it. In particular, the jpeg output is excellent. I would like to see a Nikon digital rangefinder with the M mount because of the cost and reliability issues I've heard about with Leica bodies." Concise, and without all the hatred towards other people.</p>

<p>If you were speaking in person to a worldwide audience of 10000 people, would you say the things you wrote above? Why, then, here?</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 18, 2011; 05:51 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel, could you not have said "I use the X100 and like it. In particular, the jpeg output is excellent. I would like to see a Nikon digital rangefinder with the M mount because of the cost and reliability issues I've heard about with Leica bodies." Concise, and without all the hatred towards other people.<br>

If you were speaking in person to a worldwide audience of 10000 people, would you say the things you wrote above? Why, then, here?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would....if the 10,000 people were responding like a lot did in this thread. Like I said, there seems to be an issue with this camera. It is well loved by those who bought it, use it, know the quirks, and love the output. It is hated by those who don't buy it, and have an odd need to proclaim to the world the fact that they didn't buy it. I haven't seen this reaction with any other cameras other than the Leica M8....and the X100 has in many way, better image quality than the M8.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[ruslan]

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, they are. (In hands of pure amateurs who want just snap)<br>

Where is Contax now? Don't you know? Did you ever tried to shoot with a NEX and antique lens attached through the rear display in bright sunlight, using your eyes to focus manually? For me - not a sheer pleasure. Under such conditions I <em>would ruin every shot</em>. I can say for Russia. In the town of 250000 citizens where I know a lot of photographers, no one is shooting NEX or Olympus micro 4/3. A lot of people are snapping with cheap SLR from Nikon or Canon mostly. SLR has its magic of shutter sound (joke) and optical VF. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>But Dave, a professional should behave professionally even if others do not.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

When I am on here, I am not doing professional photography or the other things that are related to it. I am sharing my

views within the guidelines of the site admins. And I never once inferred that I hate anyone, I am just calling it like I

see it. Thom Hogan has some great user guides out there, but he is not what I would consider a mentor photographer,

therefore not the best opinion on the X100. Kelby and some other person trashed the X100 to bits on some stupid

video, a total idiot and he has heard from me years ago how I don't care for his Walmart of Photoshop style of

business. There are so called reviewers out there who do a decent job of giving an opinion on a piece of gear.....but

there are far too many of them. Being a gear reviewer or posting some blather about a piece of gear has become a

sickening new hobby for many people, it's all they can talk about and frankly, their photos stink so that's probably why

we see SO many posts like "My D7000 Review" under two dozen of the same threads.

 

I don't hate people but I do hate how when it comes to online photography forums, there seems to be less talk about

photographs, the life one lives leading up to them and instead it is all about gear.

I call them the "Internet Gear Review Hero" and "Great Capture" clubs for a reason, I rarely see good imagery resulting

from it.

 

And hell yes, I would say the same thing in front of 10,000 people live, no question.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Dave Luttman, many answered to the OP's question before without showing any hatred towards the X100 or Leica rangefinders. You're reading very selectively. The only thing that was pointed out which may sound negative about the X100 is the fact that "massively succesful" and "more demand than Fuji expected" may not be all that many cameras for the size of business that Nikon (and Canon, for that matter) are running. Personally, I have no doubt the X100 is an excellent camera in many ways (and I'd be happy to have one but I can't justify the price at this moment for myself), but it IS a niche camera. All that has been said by the "many" here, including me: Nikon is not likely to enter that niche market. That does not knock down the X100, but it's a perception of the Nikon business and their business decisions.</p>

<p>And that has been the whole point of many: it's not that the m4/3, NEX, X100, Leica M or medium format cameras businesses are all bad ideas, nor has this been said. The original question was: why does Nikon not make one? And to that, many well-thought out responses came which all boil down to Nikon's business model. They are in a different market position than Sony, Olympus, Leica and Fuji. And they cannot please all people.<br>

So let's be very glad others companies do fill the niche gaps in the market and offer more choice for everybody. None of us is married to one brand now, are we?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As Wouter Willemse points out, the OP asked why Nikon does not produce something similar to the Fuji X100, and plenty of us pointed out that it is a niche product. Even Fuji themselves hopes to produce 100K unit a year. In comparison, when Nikon first launched the D300, they were producing 80K units a month and then soon increased to 90K a month. In other words, Nikon produces about as many top-of-the-line DX DSLR in a month as Fuji with the X100 in a year. If Fuji cannot produce enough to meet market demands, it is more like a sign that Fuji has capacity issues. Likewise, the Nikon D3S has been in short supply since April, 2010, almost a year before the Japan earthquake. You wonder why Nikon has not been able to solve their D3S production/supply issues after so many months.</p>

<p>In other words, the question here is not whether there are a few people who love the X100. The point is that regardless of how much Jim Tardio and Daniel Bayer like their X100, as far as I know each one of them bought just one. And despits his many praises, Ralph Oshiro still does not own a X100. This thread has been around for over a week, and still you can count in one hand the number of actual X100 owners who have responded. If our answer that Nikon is not interested producing a niche product that they can easily lose money on, once again I suggest the OP to ask Nikon themselves; none us here speaks for Nikon. Keep repeating your question on this forum is not going to get your anywhere.</p>

<p>And finally, as a moderator for this forum, I would like to remind everybody that there is no place for personal attacks here. If you don't like Hogan or Kelby's X100 review, point out where your disagreement is and where you think they are wrong. However, Hogan's rumors and Nikon product predictions, as well as similar (mis)information from various rumor sites, are frequently wrong. It is not a good idea to make your points based on such rumors.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Shun, that is not what the OP asked at all. As a moderator, I would expect that to be made clear. He asked about a NEX/X100/Leica comparable. I didn't see anyone launching off into low Leica sales, etc, etc....but a bashing of the X100 as a marketable product. As to the Kelby shrill, simply watching the video of his "review" should provide a tremendous amount of insight in to his photography experience.....it has become a joke on the internet. That's not a personal attack. When he makes a complete fool of himself, don't expect praise from me. </p>