Is it Possible for Nikon?

[andylynn]

Yes, if only Nikon people read these fora they'd know they had several dozen guaranteed D400 sales.

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Canon hasn't upgraded the image quality in it's Rebel line in, what, four generations? I recently upgraded to a T3i. They are dirt cheap and there isn't a compelling reason to spend HUNDREDS more on a T5i that will be obsoleted 5 years down the road. I upgraded my first DSLR within one year of purchase. Unless there are some dramatic changes on the video side of things I could see myself not upgrading my T3i for five years... or more. The US market is getting saturated and all the people that bought fancy DSLRs are probably realizing at this stage they really don't use them that much so they don't have any compelling reason to go out and spend another $500+ dollars on something they don't need.</p>

<p>The mirrorless thing is kind of a joke. Once you put anything other than a pancake on the body it's not pocketable. If you are a reporter then a mirroless with a pancake makes a ton of sense especially with the mass firings that are going on in newspaper photography departments. But for me who has multiple Canon lenses buying a mirrorless camera and then the obligatory adapter was more expensive than just getting a T3i and having no constraints.</p>

<p>How many people are really going to pay the premium for the EOS M just to cruise around with a single pancake prime? For the people that need it it is awesome but how many people really need it?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The only significant miscalculations Nikon made with the V1 were:</p>

<ol>

<li>Using the CX sensor when they had the Coolpix A APS-C sensor in the pipeline.</li>

<li>Burying common manual adjustments in the menu.</li>

</ol></blockquote>

<p>Lex, glad to see you back to photo.net.</p>

<p>Rightly so or wrongly so, Nikon decided to make the Nikon 1 mirrorless cameras small, which is their main selling point.</p>

<p>Since those cameras are so small, there is clearly no real estate on the camera for dedicated buttons for convenient controls. Burying controls deep into the menu system (or perhaps use a touch screen or perhaps remote control from something else, e.g. a smart phone??) is their only opion. Even the small DSLRs such as the D3200 and D5200 have that problem, perhaps to a lesser degree.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>what Nikon's customers are shouting for years, like a D400</em>"<br />they dont care about their customers wishes and believe its just a matter of marketing.<br />they ignored the menetekel, all over the forums a lot of people asked for a "new d300" for years, and they got a D7100; maybe its a OK camera but for sure its not what I wanted</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would say most of those people who are still "souting" for a D400 have never used a D7100.</p>

<p>I have been using Nikon for well over 30 years, owning quite a few high-end models, including the F4, F5, D2X and also the D300, D700, and D800E. In fact, I currently still own all of those camera. However, today, my main camera is the D7100.</p>

<p>I am not exactly sure what this "D400" is supposed to be, but if people are talking about another $1800, updated D300, I would say at $1200, the D7100 already does at least 90% of this "D400" would have done. Back in late 2010, I stopped using my D300 in favor of the D7000, and earlier this year I upgraded to the D7100. The D7100 can certainly be better, but I wouldn't be using it had it been posting serious restrictions to my action photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, if only Nikon people read these fora they'd know they had several dozen guaranteed D400 sales.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And do you think selling a few dozen "D400" will make Nikon any money?</p>

<p>Even though Nikon might be able to sell another 300K this so called "D400," it would certainly off-set a lot of D7100 and D600 sales. Nikon could spend a lot of R&D money to add this "D400," but to me, their net gain will likely be very limited, if there is any in the first place.</p>

<p>The D300 existed because FX was very expensive back in that era. Six years ago, on August 23, 2007, Nikon announced the D3 (their first FX DSLR) and the D300 simultaneously. The D3 was $5000 and the D300 $1800. Along with the distontinuation of the D2 family, Nikon had nothing between $1800 and $5000. Today, there is the $2800 D800 and $2000 D600. There is no more room for this "D400" any more.</p>

<p>Having too many different models for customers to choose from is typically not a good business strategy. R&D cost is high, and you will also add to inventory, parts, repair ... issues.</p>

<p>Below is one of my favorite bird action images, captured with the D7100. I have more in my D7100 folder: <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1052968">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1052968</a> and even a lot more that I haven't posted.</p><div></div>

[Mike D]

<p>I use a D7100 with my 300-800 and it works very well although the buffer is restrictive (shooting large, fine JPEGs only), and 6FPS is a little slow. I also shoot football with a Sony A57 and 70-400 at 10FPS with full auto focus. Once you've experienced 10 FPS for sports, 6 FPS is disappointing. I believe Nikon purposely crippled the buffer and speed of the D7100 in order to introduce a faster cropped frame camera sometime in the future. This is not an unusual marketing practice as car companies do this on a regular basis. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I also shoot football with a Sony A57 and 70-400 at 10FPS with full auto focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem with the Sony A57 and many other modern Sony DSLR is that they are not traditional SLRs. Instead, they have a fixed, semi transparant pellicle mirror. That is an alternative Canon tried a couple of times in the past and abandoned. Additionally, the Sonys also do not use an optical viewfinder. To say the least, there are a lot of compromises in Sony's design and that is why nobody else uses it.</p>

<p>To achieve 10 fps with a traditional SLR without a pellicle mirror that obstructs some of the light hitting the sensor, you need a very robust mechanical body similar to the D2, D3 and D4. Even though it is DX, I can't see that costing less than $3500 to $4000 and is certainly not the $1800 "D400" people are expecting. I very much would like to see another DX sports/action DSLR in the same vain as the D2H/D2HS even at $4000, but I simply don't see any market for Nikon to justify it.</p>

 

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p>"The main problem is the same as ever - <strong>too many tiny sensor P&S models with pointless, insignificant differences</strong>. ... Best thing Nikon could do is drop all the tiny sensor Coolpix models and replace them with CX sensor models."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that. Nikon has TWENTY-FOUR frigging Coolpix digicams in the current catalogue. Honestly, if someone asked me for a Nikon P&S recommendation, I would probably need to throw a dart at the wall to pick one out. They need to seriously thin the herd in this segment.</p>

<p>Nice to see you back Lex. :-)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Since those cameras are so small, there is clearly no real estate on the camera for dedicated buttons for convenient controls."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would have guessed the same thing... until the new Ricoh GR with APS-C sensor came out. It's slightly smaller than the V1 and only very slightly larger than the tiny sensor GRDs. Yet Ricoh retained the essential external controls - dedicated, multi-purpose and programmable - that defined the GR-series as the epitome of how a digicam should be designed. The Coolpix A is slightly smaller than the V1 yet retains a good selection of external controls. The Coolpix P7700 is larger and has better external controls.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Honestly, if someone asked me for a Nikon P&S recommendation, I would probably need to throw a dart at the wall to pick one out."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's why I usually recommend Olympus P&S digicams over Nikon Coolpix to most folks who are snapshooters and have no desire to become "photographers".</p>

<p>Olympus P&S models consistently produce better looking JPEGs straight from the camera, with less effort, and excellent autoexposure and auto-flash. Since most of these folks will print only around 4x6 or share online, they'll never notice or care about the typical Olympus tendency toward over-smoothing noise at ISOs above 200.</p>

[joe_user3]

<blockquote>

<p>Olympus P&S models consistently produce better looking JPEGs straight from the camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no experience shooting with Olympus digital cameras, but I find this an interesting observation. I recently gave my nephew a Nikon Coolpix P7700 after testing it briefly and finding the image quality straight from the camera to be very good. It has the articulated screen and a hotshoe that one can use with recent Nikon SB flash units. <br>

I own and use a Nikon 1 V1 and enjoy it very much (bought it last December when they were sold at a huge markdown). I like the small size of the camera and lenses, but the lack of a normal hotshoe is a disappointment (I bought the small Nikon flash to go with it). I hope Nikon will continue to develop new cameras with the CX mount.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I think the best Coolpix available at Best Buy the other day was the S9500. I liked it overall and wanted to recommend it to my friend, but we couldn't get satisfactory results in full auto mode against strong backlighting (subject's back to the brightly sunlit front doors), with or without flash. Same with every Nikon, Canon, Sony and other model we tried. Either the subject's face was too dark and the background properly exposed, or the subject's face was too "flash-y" and the background was underexposed. I'd need to tweak the exposure compensation and flash compensation to get the desired results. Not a satisfactory solution for a casual snapshooter who just wants good results without any technical know-how.</p>

<p>The Olympus P&S models we tried (all from the TG-series waterproof/shockproof line) delivered great results in full auto-everything mode, effortlessly. My friend bought the TG-630 iHS. It's a terrific camera in the $200 range for the casual snapshooter, with surprisingly quick AF and shutter response. It neatly balanced ambient/fill flash in tricky situations without needing to tweak the exposure compensation. The only other P&S I've handled that can manage that as well is the Ricoh GRD4.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>"<em>That is an alternative Canon tried a couple of times in the past and abandoned</em>". <br>

I am surprised that you dont know about F3HS</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mag: That Nikon tried <i>once</i> and abandoned. :-)<br />

<br />

For once, I'm kind of going to agree with Shun on the "D400" situation. I don't think there'll be a D400 that's just a D7100 with a bigger buffer; I would expect a slightly rewarmed D7100 that fixes this at some point (and maybe tries to hit 7fps to match the 700D), but I'm reminded of the old story about two new army recruits: The sergeant asks them to drop and do as many press-ups as they can. The first one does a hundred. The second does one press-up, then collapses. "Aren't you ashamed?" asks the first. "No," says the second: "Tomorrow I'll do two press-ups, and I'll have 100% improvement. What are you going to do?"<br />

<br />

I do think there would be interest in a "D4DX" system (a D2xs successor). There's interest in high frame rates and in pixel density for reach (one reason why I would expect 24MP rather than 16), without the low light performance of the D4. As Shun says, it wouldn't be cheap - I don't see it as cheaper than the D600, for example. This isn't necessarily a problem - it's a specialist item, just as the D800 is better than a D4 for many tasks. It might be alarmingly better than the D4 at some tasks, which is why I might not expect it to appear until a D5 raises the game. The question is how much Nikon could sell it for. I'm not personally after one, but the comments I keep reading seem to assume that it would cost much less than a D4 (or even D600). Less than the D4 I'd believe; less than a consumer camera, not so much. And, in those terms, I've no idea whether Nikon think they can sell any, and whether they'd be right. But then, they weren't right about the 1 series, for the most part.<br />

<br />

As for the handling of the V1, I agree with Lex - I'd use it far more if it was easier to use as a general-purpose camera. It's just about possible to use in manual mode, but it's fiddly. The V2 looks better, but not enough (for me) to pay the premium for it. SLR pricing for compact handling, even without the sensor, just don't make sense - I don't believe it's all a size thing, but maybe that's because I'm male.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>That is an alternative Canon tried a couple of times in the past and abandoned</em>". <br /> I am surprised that you dont know about F3HS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I did, because I looked up "pellicle mirror": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellicle_mirror<br>

The F5 was already out in 1996 for the Atlanta Olympics. Adding some F3HS in 1998, two generations behind, is not exactly an achievement.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Good link, Shun. Given that... "That Nikon tried <i>twice</i> and abandoned". My apologies. :-) (It's interesting that they got to 13fps without starting with an 8fps conventional camera, though.)</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<blockquote>

<p><em>For once, I'm kind of going to agree with Shun on the "D400" situation. I don't think there'll be a D400 that's just a D7100 with a bigger buffer; I would expect a slightly rewarmed D7100 that fixes this at some point (and maybe tries to hit 7fps to match the 700D)</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>I guess not. It's too late now. Perhaps a DX model with an Expeed 4 and new AF system (not the 51 point AF system), would make more sense as the new, and future, DX flagship now, if any...<br>

Same I think goes for the D700+ that some people are waiting for...it's D800/D800E. Disappointed?...then wait the next generation of Nikon's FX models if you're going to stick with the brand.</p>

 

[prendy]

The iPhone 5s it seems will be announced in September. It will probably offer further photographic improvements which

will probably make a further dent in the sales of all P&S makers. Such a trend will need attention from all manufacturers,

in terms of making their P&S more competitive or getting out of the market. Once they can offer zoom and better

handling why would you buy a P&S over a cell phone?

What caught my attention recently was the Lumix FMC70 with 20mm to 1200mm equivalent zoom at $399 or euro. For

someone who has no direct need for such a zoom but would nevertheless find it useful, this is an attractive option to a

long focus Nikon lens for my D800. Coincidentally last night some friends were showing us some photos from a recent

trip to New York. One photo stood out. It was made with a 50 times zoom on a cheap P&S. I can't see Nikon though

deploying gimmick technology to try and stay ahead of the curve.

[Kent Shafer]

<blockquote>

<p>Lex, glad to see you back to photo.net</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree.</p>

[ken_i_h]

<p>It's easy to criticize after the result came out. Well, some may have criticized before the result, but who knew it would be good or bad in the end. Many Japanese consumers like Nikon's mirror-less (Nikon 1 has satisfaction scores 4.74 out of 5.00 by the owners), although not the most sold camera. When it fails, it fails. It is what it is.<br>

Nikon has learned the lesson, hopefully, and let's hope it make better products this fiscal year. And you all meet the better products, too.</p>