Someone explain the Nikon business model?

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I don't get Nikon in recent years. Today they apparently add yet another series 5000 camera little changed from the previous. I was in Best Buy the other day, and they're still selling D5200's, and D5300's. Meanwhile the D7100 is looking long in the tooth as these things go, and is arguably inferior to both the D5300, and the new D5500 in IQ terms.<br>

Recently they released the D750 which by all early accounts was a stunner....well, except for a major flare problem. Previously there was the whole D600 imbroglio. Don't these guys test anything before release? It's getting hard not to see Nikon a Keystone cops.<br>

I'm not a business guy so possibly there's something I'm missing, but I don't know what it might be. If not for the fact that Nikon still (in my opinion) produces the dslrs with the best image quality I would have switched to either Canon, Sony, or Pentax a year ago. I still might if this nonsense continues, because at some point one loses confidence in a manufacturer. <br>

Anyway, does someone have a credible theory as to what's going on in Nikon house?</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>It's partly a marketing ploy I would guess. The market sees a company constantly updating their models, so every 6-9 months a new model's out. This improves public perception that it's a good idea to buy Nikon as you'd get a newer technology model than from say a competing company that releases new models only once every 2 years. </p>

[SCL]

<p>I think at the professional level their strategy is pretty good. At the prosumer level I liken it to the two hikers who encountered a bear in the woods; As they began running, the one hiker said to the other..."you just can't outrun a bear", to which the other replied, "I only have to outrun you". In essence...Nikon at the lower levels seems to be just trying to slightly outrun its chief competitors, not make a large capital outlay or quantum leap forward on technology which quickly outdates itself.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Everybody wants the latest model, so Nikon keeps creating new ones, even though the technology has leveled out now. The 7xxx series is being squeezed out by low cost FX models, which will probably be gone altogether in the near future.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Looking at dpreview, they list 342 Canon camera models (Powershot & EOS, and newer) and 223 Nikon camera models (Coolpix and D's) since Summer 1997. That's a lot of digital churning.</p>

<p>Reliving the glory days for a moment ... early churning ...</p>

<p>The Nikon F2 was made from 1971 - 1980, the Nikon F3 from 1980 - 1988 and the F4 from 1988 - 1997 (Wikipedia). Even then, that seemed 'sluggish' compared to Canon, philosophy differences I guess.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Yeah, I get what you all are saying, but still it seems like a really disorganized operation. I mean what explanation is there for releasing the D5500, before the D7200. The D7100 is still operating on Expeed 3 while the D5300, and now the newer D5500 are a generation farther down the road.<br>

I'm not sure that the notion of discontinuing DX models makes a lot of sense either, if other manufacturers continue to make cropped sensors. Is Nikon simply going to live on FX, and leave a whole huge segment of the market to Canon, Pentax, Sony.<br>

You know when you look at all the quality control issues with D600, D800 focusing, and now the D750 internal reflections problem, it really makes one wonder who's at the helm. These things would have been cause for great shame in the Nikon company back in the film days. I still remember how they once responded to a lens that had nothing wrong with it, but was not as good as it could have been. They apologized profusely to all their customers for releasing a less than stellar lens.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Don't these guys test anything before release?</em></p>

<p>They do, but not all problems can be detected before release if the product is to have timely features that interest the customers. A few years ago the only high resolution Nikon was the 24MP D3X for $8000. Today you can get a far superior image quality and two stops more sensitive AF in a D750 for roughly $2000. You think that kind of price reduction comes for free, and there is no downside? Yeah right. The thing is that if people want light weight and state of the art features for lower and lower prices, something's got to give.</p>

<p>In the case of the D600 and D800(E) there was the earthquake & tsunami the previous year in Japan (in which much of the city where the Nikon FX cameras were made was flooded into the Pacific, even if Nikon's own factory wasn't, it was merely damaged in the earthquake), as well as severe flooding of Nikon's factory, so IMO it was surprising the company survived at all, some QC problems were expected given that they had to essentially rebuild factories, find new subcontractors for some components that they don't make themselves to replace ones that didn't survive the natural disasters and so on. Total chaos basically. I am surprised they were able to resume production so quickly. I would cut them some slack for products made in 2011-2.</p>

<p>As for the D750, well most of the reviewers were unable to catch any problem with them, basically those who found out about it were people who intentionally shoot for flare as an effect. I imagine Nikon camera and lens designers try to eliminate flare in as far as possible instead of trying to create some pretty flare for fashionable portraits of the day. It has been demonstrated that numerous other DSLR cameras produce fairly similar effects in those unusual circumstances where the D750 displays the flare even if the contrast is a bit higher in the D750.</p>

<p>Let's look back a few more years. I know someone who bought one of the first F5 cameras when it first came out. It had serious battery issues basically he got about 1 roll (if I recall correctly) through before the fresh set of 8 AA alkaline batteries were dead and had to be replaced. He managed to get a replacement camera eventually. This was their top model at the time. The F70 I had a long time ago underexposed all non-CPU lenses by 1 stop. I complained about it here (it was my first post I recall) and I got slaughtered for not knowing what I am talking about. Nikon's response was slightly different: they didn't have a fix available at the time but six months later they said now they had a replacement circuit that would fix it. They gave me free repairs, CLAs etc. of all Nikon stuff I sent there for many years after that. I am not sure if it was because I had reported a problem or because they were just nice. The D70 and D2H had the so-called blinking green light of death syndrome, in which the camera basically died suddenly because of an electronics fault and lit the CF light. All the D70 cameras that my friends and I had in fact developed this fault over time. Nikon gave free repair and introduced the D70s to fix the D70's reputation, and D2Hs to fix the D2H's (and the remaining D2H cameras were sold at a fire sale). On the Canon side there were many reports of mirrors falling out of 5D series cameras just to name one example. I think it has always been suggested on this forum that it is best to wait a few months to see what problems there may be in early runs of new products to get detected and fixed. Shun has suggested that many, many times. I guess it is just that people are more and more impatient now.</p>

<p>What is new is the magnitude of the internet hysteria that results from the slightest of inconvenience for the user, when in fact Nikon cameras and lenses have improved dramatically from what they were just a few years ago, both in functionality as well as image quality. I guess they are approaching such levels of perfection that minor issues are blown out of proportion and now no glitch however small is acceptable (I am not suggesting the D600 glitch was small, but many of the others are).</p>

<p>The higher end models are updated less frequently than the consumer models, this has always been the case. The D7100 is approaching two years old soon, so it is likely to get an update in 2015. If you look it up, you will find that the replacement interval of the D7000 with the D7100 was longer than two years and the D300s was introduced about two years after the D300. The D700 was not replaced in four and a half years. The Canon 7D took five years to be replaced with the 7D Mark II. Now those two are legitimate examples of cameras that took a long time to be replaced. The D7100 is still a relatively hot new thing though its price has fallen a lot.</p>

<p><em>at some point one loses confidence in a manufacturer.</em></p>

<p>I have never been as happy with Nikon equipment as in the past few years. The image quality is phenomenally good; many new lenses are exactly what I have been hoping for, in many cases the new lenses have been better than expected (e.g. the 20/1.8, the 70-200/4 etc.), and problems are extremely rare, apart from some autofocus issues which I've had with a few models, but then one might say I was asking for it by shooting moving subjects mostly wide open... when in the past it was a given that one had to stop down the lens to shoot an approaching subject with any confidence. Trying to track an approaching subject with manual focus at f/2 or f/1.4 really puts things in perspective. At the moment I don't have cameras with any kind of issues. One of those things to keep in mind is that when people have a problem, they gather around on the internet to complain ... but when they don't have a problem, they are often silent. This is one of the reasons why there is so much hysteria now, I think. Many people just focus too much on the negative. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>What is new is the magnitude of the internet hysteria that results from the slightest of inconvenience for the user</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Ilkka +2</p>

[jimcee]

<p>+3</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As far as I can tell, a large part is indeed internet hysteria, which, of course cuts both ways. I personally have used a D800, a D800E, a D600, and two D750 ... without any of those common complaints on the respective models (although I have experienced other, unrelated issues). And yet there was some class-action lawsuit against Nikon on the D600. Meanwhile, Nikon themselves took full advantage of the hysteria and milked the publicity for the Df to no end. Eventually, the Df is still a niche product that has appeal to a small number of people who are mostly older and/or collectors, but we had threads on it on this very forum that are by far longer than discussions on any other popular Nikon DSLR.<br>

<br>

Unfortunately, I am afraid the OP here has been fanning the flames. Merely two days after Nikon had started shipping the D7100 almost two years ago so that few had any actual cameras to test, he already started a thread on the D7100's "banding problems," which of course has never been a common issue for that model: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bSGM<br>

<br>

Internet hysteria is something we just have to get used to. Ever since 2012, people have been using microscopes to look for tiny flaws among Nikon DSLRs and discuss them to no end. The internet is great and I have been using it in its current form for some 20 years, plus years of net news before that, but just like most things, there are two sides to each coin.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I would have switched to either Canon, Sony, or Pentax a year ago</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to me like "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" thinking. Canon had its share of issues, and their consumer-level camera models were changing even faster than Nikon's. Sony is making a mess of their A/E-mount duality and apparently can only make cameras - lenses are long in coming and when they finally appear, are usually more expensive than the competition. When dealing with Sony E/FE-mount system, one is well advised to wait awhile before purchasing, because chances are that the price has dropped significantly by then - if there isn't a new model already.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>people want light weight</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and smaller and smaller (or so the camera makers want us believe). The result are many camera bodies one can't hold comfortably and an increasing discrepancy in the size of the camera and the lenses - which leads to other handling issues. IMO, Nikon went the wrong way with the D7000 (an ergonomic disaster) but has shown now with the D750 that light and small is possible without sacrificing handling. Sony shows the same thing with the A7II. Too bad Nikon doesn't stick to the D300/D700/D800 control layout throughout - the D7000/D71000/D600/D750 layout is much less convenient.</p>

<p>In the last few years, I would only classify one issue as a major disaster for Nikon - that was the D600 debris issue AND Nikon's botched handling of it. The others are rather minor in comparison - though QA/QC problems aren't exactly confidence inspiring. If one wants to see a manufacturer that has problems after problems with their cameras, then one only needs to look at Leica.</p>

<p>And lastly: Ilkka +4</p>

[Palouse]

<p>Ilkka +5</p>

<p>and it's not just cameras--even a causal look at car forums, kitchen equipment sites, etc., will sicken you :)</p>

[greg_alton]

I would guess the replacement to the d7100 will now be the d7500.

 

D750,d5500, etc. Just a guess though.

[jonb]

<p>Keep in mind that their ultimate goal is to make money. I doubt anyone here has actual marketing data (sales numbers and projections, cost breakdowns, survey and customer-response data, etc) for Nikon's products. I certainly don't. Without that information, nobody can realistically assess whether Nikon's product development choices make sense or not.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Even though I kinda agree with Bruce, if I were buying a new DSLR, I wouldn't look past Nikon at all. None of the other brands are compelling for me as an amateur, although Canon is getting there.<br /><br />But this lower market segment will, I think, eventually be taken over and almost completely supplanted by Mirrorless perhaps. I know that's the direction I went, and I hated Nikon's lame offering in this category, so I went Olympus µ43. I think Nikon needed a D5500 like I need another hole in my head. Why it wasn't a D7500 or whatever that was announced this week is beyond me.</p>

<p>But they probably know stuff I don't there at Nikon HQ.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Last summer I was very hot to buy a Fuji XT-1. It looked very small, and had small lenses. I like small for travel! I got to comparing it to the D5300 and a couple of small Nikon lenses. I found the size & weight difference were almost non-existent. The price to go Fuji was significantly more! And, I was giving up a better AF system. Although the Fuji is a nice system, I decided to stay with Nikon and the D5xxx series as my travel/back up body.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[User_5050610]

<p>Kent--maybe way OT, but do you post to railpictures.net?<br>

Thanks!<br>

Paul</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Dear Bruce !<br>

I own Nikon since 1977 and I have many Nikon's. I have a few Pentax's, a few Minolta's and a few Olympus's but just one lowly Canonet QL17 GIII. So I am obviously a Nikon fan and not Canon fan but I do think the image quality of the Canon DSLR's are just as good as Nikon if not even better. I have used my nephew 5DMkIII and it's an excellent camera. So if I were you and so pissed off about Nikon I would certainly switch to Canon. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Illka and Shun have a lot more patience than I have

 

Btw: with a D750, in bright sunny weather last week I really tried hard to reproduce the flare issue Bruce describes as

"major". Couldn't do it with the new 20mm f/1.8G, the 24-120mm f/4G Vr, the 24-70mm f/2.8G, or the 70-200mm f/2.8G Vr

II lenses. . I'm not saying it can't happen but my intuition is telling me that you have to work in a very specific manner