Is it Possible for Nikon?

[songtsen]

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree that it was overpriced at launch (I bought mine 2 months ago). What actually surprised me was the first part of his statement (dismissing the Nikon 1 as <em>"nothing special in comparison to the existing</em> competition"). Evidently, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2095833">Panayotis Papadopoulos</a> has not noticed any difference in continuous and tracking AF between the Nikon 1 and the "existing competition".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>I wish Nikon would make one (or two) buttons on the V1 customisable (would this be possible in a firmware update?). I haven't had the opportunity to use a Panasonic camera, but the layout of the buttons and wheel on the V1 is certainly better than on my (previous) E-PL2. I couldn't seem to avoid unintentionally changing settings on the Olympus.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Songtsen: I appreciate that Nikon did good work in trying to differentiate the 1-series autofocus from the competition - it <i>is</i> a weakness of non-SLR (and SLT, hello Sony) cameras. I have to say that I've honestly never used mine in circumstances where the AF advantage would be useful, and I've usually used it in conditions where I'm either in manual focus or where there's insufficient light for the phase detect, but then I did say I'm probably not in the target demographic.<br />

<br />

I'd love a more configurable interface - but again, Nikon seem to be under the impression that the 1-series is bought by, shall we say, people who want a camera that they can put in a handbag. In Japan, by all accounts, it <i>is</i>. In the UK, while the only one I've seen in the wild other than my own was in use by a mother (who appeared to be Japanese), I suspect most people wanting a camera they can fit in a bag would pick either a smaller compact or a more flexible superzoom. Putting any interchangeable-lens camera in a large and overstuffed handbag is a recipe for trouble, if the contents of my wife's bag is anything to go by, and it's too big for a clasp bag. (The same is true of my back-pack, but at least it's bigger and I can hide a V1 in a pocket that seems to be designed for a phone.) Anyway, practicalities of transport aside, I don't believe Nikon want to risk confusing simplistic customers with a more flexible interface, useful though it would be to me. But it depends who actually <i>is</i> buying these cameras outside the native market.</p>

[jonb]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>Do your adult children also have children? Do those children play sports or engage in other active pursuits? If so, I bet their parents are getting mighty frustrated trying to take photos of those activities with their iPhones. iPhones are great; I have one and take pictures with it. But they have limitations like anything else.<br>

<br />In my view, part of the problem with the Nikon 1 system is that it hasn't really been marketed in a way that distinguishes it from the competition, be it cell-phone cameras or other mirrorless or P&S cameras. (At least in the US. I'm not familiar with how it's done elsewhere.) If I were the Nikon USA marketing guy, I'd have commercials made that showed soccer moms trying to get shots of their little darlings with their iPhone and a P&S, followed by showing them doing it with a Nikon 1 camera and a 30-110 lens.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>...but bear in mind that the depth of field of an iPhone is pretty immense. You get pretty good quality images of children at most sporting events just by focussing at infinity, especially at web or video resolutions. The 1 system can do <i>better</i>, but whether it's better <i>enough</i> (especially for a 10MP image from a V1, which is pretty noisy in low light to boot) is another matter. A DSLR is very good at tracking focus, but it has to be because the DoF is typically much shallower that a compact or a phone. If you want to make a 1-series look good, you need to compare the zoom range with a phone and the AF with a P&S. Then you need to make sure the P&S isn't such a big superzoom that it has much more reach available than the 1-series (getting blurry shots occasionally may be made up for by getting better framing), and hope nobody notices that the kit zoom on the 1-series doesn't have much reach, and that it's not actually all that small when you include longer lenses. Or shorter ones, compared with the Panasonic 14-42.<br />

<br />

The V1 has some nice tricks (for which I bought it), but it's very niche, and I'd think very hard before recommending one to someone in what appears to be Nikon's target market.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>The Nikon MILCs sit unfomfortably between camera phones and the larger sensor MILCs. In business terms, it's 'stuck in the middle' and hardly is a niche product when compared with the rest of the market. Therefore, the results are very much what I would have expected in a difficult market.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Jonathon, when you quoted my statement about my children, you nailed Nikon's problem exactly. The original post was mostly about mirrorless camera sales taking a nose dive. If my children had children then they would most likely use a DSLR and not a mirrorless camera for speed. Of course they might also want me to take the sports pictures of their children for them with my DSLRs. </p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>A long thread, and I think a significant concept is missing.</p>

<p>A camera like the D4 didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere - it wasn't the result of someone sitting at a desk in a quiet room with a clean sheet of paper and designing the camera, all its capabilities, and the methods to manufacture it efficiently and with quality, so it could be introduced as a surprise. It is the result of designing and building lesser cameras for over a decade, with the capabilities and manufacturing processes evolving as they learned to yield the camera we have today.</p>

<p>We are seeing the same process in mirrorless cameras today. It demonstrates thinking and planning for the long term. Skipping the mirrorless product in favor of exploiting DSLRs because they are doing better in today's market would be beneficial in the short term, but only in the short term. Nikon is not operating solely to optimize this quarter's balance sheet. That practice is a major contributor to the economic difficulties that are proving so persistent.</p>

<p>If long term thinking isn't to your liking, fine. There are plenty of short sighted companies to invest in. You just need to hurry.</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>@ Songtsen Kampo<br /> First I would like to thank Andrew Garrard because his point of view and answers are covering, in a great extend, my side of story, regarding Songtsen's questions. <br /> And yes dear Songtsen, ...Panayotis Papadopoulos didn't mention the "continuous and tracking AF", the major fact that would "distinguish" Nikon from the "existing competition" and make the difference in sales. Did you see that thing happening?...I guess not. Why? What was wrong with the people that could not understand this specialty that solely Nikon was offering and translate it in sales? <br /> Is it because they remember Ashton Kutcher just having fun with the camera? Just saying...is it because the target group that Nikon addressed initially their mirrorless cameras were people coming from small compact P&S cameras? Is it because they just wanted to have fun just like Ashton Kutcher? How many of them you would estimate are interested in "continuous and tracking AF"? How many of them know what does that mean? Does Ashton Kutcher know?<br /> Ever occurred to you that might the whole marketing campaign Nikon used was not primarily addressed to connoisseurs? (and I am not blaming them for doing this). Did I mention Ashton Kutcher having fun?<br /> Thanks for reading and your valuable input. Panayotis.</p>

[Gup]

<p>So, should I stop waiting for my D2x and D700 replacements? I'm not getting any younger sitting here.</p>

[andylynn]

I think that "shooting a soccer game with a phone" is a good example of how once you get beyond very basic needs, you

need a real camera. As they are now phones can replace very cheap P&S cameras for a lot of uses but I don't see any

phenomenon of people who would be using higher grade cameras not buying them and instead using phones. I think the

slowing sales has more to do with the large number of people who already have a DSLR and the slow pace of

improvement that's really meaningful. Somebody who bought a D90 four years ago and doesn't feel a pressing need to

upgrade is somebody who hasn't contributed to SLR sales in the last 3 years.

 

I see DSLRs all over the place - you can't walk a block in the city without seeing one. The installed base is saturated with

the things. But most don't look like they were bought new in the last couple of years.

 

The oft cited data showing that a huge percentage of photos on Facebook and other web sites came from phones doesn't

mean people don't shoot other cameras. It means that people use phones to take snapshots to go on Facebook.

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Hehe, dear Gup I am not sure if you are talking about a D4X to replace your D2X, but for the D700, I think, it's a lost game. Nikon will pretty kind answer you "Get the D800/D800E". Or you could do what two members of the Greek Photo-site I am also registered did. They sold their D700 and 24-70 combo and moved to Sony A99 and Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8. They got tired of waiting for the successor of D700 and moved to another brand and never looked back again. One of them is a concert photographer and the other a weeding one. OF course they didn't have invest heavily in Nikon as you might have.<br /> Andy, in the US, a specific newspaper, I don't recall their name but the story was widely spread around, decided that they do not need pro cameras for the job and that they should train their personnel to take pictures with their mobile phones. DPreview, recently had a challenge as they call it, kind of contest, with pictures solely taken with mobile phones. And I guess they are not the only ones. So there are people who shot other cameras but what is happening with smartphones is huge and something to consider. I would not be surprised to see a Nikon mobile, or a Nikon cooperation with a known manufacturer of mobiles in the near future.</p>

[andylynn]

The paper you're thinking of eliminated photographers and said they'd use freelance and citizen photos. The result is that

the paper now has no good photography.

[johnw63]

<p>It has been my opinion that the Series 1 cameras had two issues that kept them from being big sellers. Price and handing. Most reviews thought that were too high priced and that they had odd buttons/menus to get to the most commonly used features that a removable lens camera should have.</p>

<p>I have an issue with most mirrorless cameras. They look like a cool pocket sized camera, until you actually put a lens on it. Then it fits in few , but the largest pockets. They are often small<strong>er</strong> than the low end DSLRs but bigger than the point and shoots. I haven't quite figured out where they stand out from the rest, other than no mirror noise. For me, and I suspect many others, being smaller and quieter but still kind of expensive just don't add up. The Series 1 line has that too. </p>

[songtsen]

<blockquote>

<p>- 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)</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"continuous and tracking AF".... What was wrong with the people that could not understand this specialty that solely Nikon was offering and translate it in sales? Is it because they remember Ashton Kutcher just having fun with the camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think I get it now. Nikon 1 failed because people actually wanted a model with "full frame mirrorless capabilities" instead of which Nikon offered them Ashton Kutcher and a mirrorless product that was "nothing special". So they have all decided to use their iPhones until a full frame mirrorless camera is available.</p>

[Stephen L]

<p>Nikon has another problem - a huge amount of old stock that isn't selling.</p>

<p>D90, D300s, Nikon 1 (any flavor), D3100/3200, D5100/5200, D7000, over-priced Coolpix A ...</p>

<p>Nikon needs to fire sale these older bodies in order to get their product line to make any sense. But doing so will cost them money and reduce the number of 1st time camera buyers - the people that would buy a rumored D1000 for example. It would also have a chilling impact on the used camera market by deflating used camera values, which might also serve to put downward pressure on new product pricing. It might also slow upgrading for those hoping to sell their old camera to help fund a new one.</p>

<p>This reminds me of the housing market in the US. Nothing can get better until the foreclosures are out of the system and production meets demand again. Only then can actual demand sustain healthy profit margins as well as new products/construction.</p>

<p> </p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Steve, the old stock is a problem. But Nikon is still a profitable company. Maybe some bold decisions have to be taken regarding stock but the major challenge is how the market changes and what needs to be done to sail along. I think Nikon is having a bit of a hard time to adjust to this. I also think that the whole mirrorless situation was a compromise for Nikon. Especially if, as mentioned earlier, the mirrorless systems WERE only commercial to Asia and the fact that all the companies behind it, WERE struggling to earn profits. Then why bother? Were people knocking down doors to have a Nikon mirrorless system? I think, since Nikon was late to introduce such a product, that all these facts should have been taken under consideration more closely, with much more attention...just thinking out loud.<br>

On the other hand there was a "voice" for other Nikon products that never got an answer. Simply because Nikon ignored them. But now they have no other way than to adjust. Nikon D7100 is a fine example of that. After a series of not that successful launches for their latest DSLRs, as far as the quality control is concerned, D7100 is the camera that up to date we haven't heard about oil sticks on the sensor, back focus problems and left AF problems...Nikon's expansion to countries with low labour will eventually bring even better prices. The world crisis advocates that. The old trick was always give people what they want, in first place, and then innovate, as long as you have a steady basis and happy customers. My humble opinion. Cheers!</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I think Steve L hit the nail on the head. I am a faithful Nikon fan that has been waiting endlessly for the mythical d400. I finally decided to go to the d7100 and have been happy with my decision. If the d400 came out tomorrow I would not buy it. The money is spent and I will not dog for more to buy a camera body that is a d7100 on steroids. The d7100 is just too damn good a camera, shallow buffer or no shallow buffer or not. I have come to the conclusion that I am a fan of the DX format but have probably purchased my last one. The d7100 is an excellent machine and I think my endless upgrading days are over until I get knocked off me horse again. </p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon offered them Ashton Kutcher</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even just now a Google™ for "jerk in the Nikon ads" still turned up Ashton Kutcher as first hit.<br>

I suppose they could have chosen Adam Sandler for a corporate representative, though. </p>

<p>In any case, someone at Nikon wasn't really getting what was wrong or right.</p>

[mcclayton]

<p>I love my V1... Is it as good as the latest and greatest FX or DX of course not.<br>

But at $529 for the two lens kit. It was a great deal . I no longer want to haul 15lbs of $3000 + equipment around<br>

Lightness and portability are key for me. And as someone who had a D70 kit stolen at gunpoint discretion counts for a lot.</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>OMG...all contributors to this thread seem to be defending their own purchase decisions. Its all a lot of hot air and full of innuendo.</p>

<p>Lets face it, the Nikon 1 has been a failure, both on pricing and on sensor choice. The $500-$1300 market is full of choice. It includes all the consumer grade DSLR's, the medium to high end mirrorless, the Fuji X.. range, Used D600's and D700's Used Canon 5D2's.......</p>

<p>I would not want to be a senior marketing exec at Nikon right now, or for any manufacturer for that matter. But cameras are only part of what Nikon makes. The medical imaging and GPS surveying part is just as big as the camera business. This is also true of Leica and Olympus. So its useless to compare.</p>

[prendy]

Aren't there two main markets here; my market whereby I like and use cameras designed first and foremost as cameras and the other

market, which is my daughter's market, whereby she snaps away merrily on her iPhone transmitting pics to friends and Facebook as she

goes? I am an idiot on the iPhone, I detest the screen and my inability to find the button and the occasional recording of an unintended

video piece. The lack of control is a real restriction but my daughter sees way beyond this and she and her generation will take over. As a

matter of survival Nikon and others need to at least understand this market and make some decisions as to how to handle it otherwise

they will get Kodaked.

For me Nikon V1's and their Canon, Panasonic, Sony and others equivalents are only a slight improvement on the iPhone. I want a

viewfinder and controls a la Fuji's X100s and Leica's X2.

[prendy]

P.S. Yes I know the X2 needs an auxiliary finder.

[songtsen]

<blockquote>

<p>Its all a lot of hot air and full of innuendo. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. It's interesting how some people tend to be quite forceful in their criticism of products they have never used. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lets face it, the Nikon 1 has been a failure, both on pricing and on sensor choice. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps they should have used a smaller sensor. Cameras with large sensors seem to be losing out to the iPhone. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The stats for first half mirrorless sales are 1.6m units in 2012, 1.3m units in 2013, or 82% this year versus last. More interestingly, only 10,235 mirrorless cameras were shipped to the US in June." <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-interchangeable-lens.html">(Link)</a> </em></p>

</blockquote>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<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>

<p>Other than that it's a very capable camera in the right hands and was an outstanding value at last December's $299 blowout price for the V1 and 10-30 VR kit. I can't imagine going back to a bulky, heavy, noisy dSLR for my documentary and candid photography after using the V1 extensively for the past 8 months. The V1 is very quick, perfect for my style and subject matter. But it's not for everyone, just as a dSLR is no longer right for me.</p>

<p>There's still plenty of viable market for well designed compact digicams to fill the gap between phone cams and dSLRs. I just helped a friend choose her first P&S digicam (an Olympus TG-630 iHS) Saturday because she was fed up with the slow, awkward phone cam for anything that moves. The main problem is the same as ever - too many tiny sensor P&S models with pointless, insignificant differences. Let the other manufacturers fight for those scraps.</p>

<p>Best thing Nikon could do is drop all the tiny sensor Coolpix models and replace them with CX sensor models. Sony proved the one-inch sensor is a potential winner with the RX100. A Coolpix P7700 with CX sensor would be a winner.</p>

<p>And much as I enjoy the V1 the entire 1 series is pointless in the CX format with competent but unexciting interchangeable lenses, and lack of compatibility with the existing SB-whatever flash units. Dumb, but not necessarily fatal to Nikon's mirrorless efforts. But an upgraded V1 with the APS-C sensor would be viable with minor external modifications to allow quicker adjustments to aperture, shutter speed and exposure compensation, with a programmable Fn button, and standard hotshoe with SB-flash. Drop all the J-series and S-series. After using the V1 with EVF I wouldn't want another mirrorless system camera without a built in electronic finder. </p>

<p>And a retooled Nikon V-whatever can't cost more than the next most comparable dSLR or mirrorless model, unless it offers significant advantages (hint: the EVF is nice; focus peaking would be nicer). While the Coolpix A is potentially attractive, it's priced too high against the Ricoh GR with APS-C sensor without offering any clear advantages over the Ricoh.</p>

 

[mag_miksch]

<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>