Why so many Coolpix bodies ?

[hjoseph7]

<p>I was looking to purchase a <strong>Nikon Coolpix</strong> camera as a gift for a relative, but the humongous list of different models is making it extremely confusing. If you go to the Nikon Coolpix Page there are the P-series, the L-series, the AW-series, and Others who do not fit under the series mentioned. A person would have to spend an entire afternoon or more just reading the specs on all those cameras.<br /> <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/</a></p>

[phule]

<p>Nikon is not alone in this regard. They "stuff the shelves" like some sort of mating display.</p>

<p>Canon, for example, lists 35 different point and shoot models on their web page, not including the individual color options.<br /> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras<br /> <br />Some of those models have been discontinued, so I'm not sure why the page has not been updated, but still, that's an absurd number of cameras to offer an ever-shrinking market.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"but still, that's an absurd number of cameras to offer an ever-shrinking market."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the market is so price-sensitive that camera makers have no option but to offer competitive products in one-dollar increments. <br>

<br>

It's good for the consumer because it offers more choices, but the downside is confusion. Similar electronics products such as TVs, laptops, monitors, smartphones, tablets, all share the same characteristics, especially at the low end. <br>

</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In addition, when a line of cameras really "takes off," the tendency is to reuse the name for newer models and variants.<br>

Witness the Kodak "Brownie".</p>

 

[Hector Javkin]

<p>You've asked an excellent question which still defies an answer. Unless Nikon and Canon and the other companies that keep introducing new cameras are getting the engineering, design and model start-up costs for free, it's hard to understand the logic of all these different cameras.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I am not sure about the actual differences, but if it is software (and the label that you put on the outside) it isn't that much engineering.<br>

Many consumer products are available with or without overpriced options. <br>

I was repairing a friend's dishwasher not so long ago, and figured out that the main difference between models was the control panel. (But he bought the matching one, anyway.) The computer is the same. Additional cycle options are easy to add, and charge more for.<br>

If you have five different features, you can build 32 different models, with and without each of those features. and very little difference in cost to make them.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The situation is also completely impractical for high street stores, because there's a limited amount of shelf space. There's no way that they could sensibly stock all the available colour options for some cameras, for example. Effectively the only companies that have a chance here are the big internet stockists, and even they are likely to end up with spare stock of some SKUs.<br />

<br />

Even the DSLR market is bad enough. A sensible person could just about decide between a D3300, D5300, D7100, D610, Df, D750, D810 and D4s, given a little guidance to help them narrow down. They may also be able to compare them against Canon's nearest equivalents, but I'm not going to go off and look them up for this discussion (even the ones I know I only know by their European names, which doesn't help many forum members here - I've no idea which Rebel is which). Throw in the D3100, D3200, D5100, D5200, D7000, D300s, D600, D800/D800e and D4 as perfectly sensible options still on shelves (it's not that long since I've seen a new D3x on a shelf) and it's not surprising that people ask advice on fora like this. At least Nikon have kept the "same camera in a different colour" nonsense to the 1 series (and most consumers can tell the difference between a green camera and a blue one without reading the spec sheet, even if it makes no sense to the stockists and puts the average price up to cover the risk of unsold items).</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Andrew, I still believe consumers benefit from the available variety. </p>

<p>The dominant factor determining most purchases is price which will immediately eliminate the vast majority of available products. The typical reasons consumers agonize over available choices have more to do with indecision as a personal trait than actual confusion in the marketplace.</p>

<p>There are over 300 models to choose from if you wanted to buy a car, and within a particular model such as a Ford Mustang is no less than 50 permutations spanning a price ratio of >2:1. There will be quite a lot of information to sort through, but it won't take long if you have a $30K tax-in budget. </p>

 

[chip_chipowski]

<p>I think the average photo.net member and the average Coolpix customer are very different people. Trying to make sense of the Coolpix line from a camera enthusiast's perspective may not be a worthwhile endeavor. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Some minor iterations in entry level consumer priced electronics are intended to satisfy the demands of big box stores and discounters. Many retailers offer a lowest price guarantee. But the consumer may find that nobody else actually carries precisely that same model. There's just enough difference between the nearly identical Gottahavit X3001Qsi and X3001Qz to allow retailers to skirt the lowest price guarantee promise. One offers 16 motherpickles and a tilt screen, the other has 12 monkeypickers and a touch screen; one does windows, the other does laundry; one is endorsed by that guy who's popular this month, the other by that gal who was popular last month; one has marshmallows stars and clovers, the other has candy crunches.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Michael: that depends. If camera makers, like car manufacturers, worked on the "body + options" model, this would be easier. It would avoid the problem of "I want two dials, a tilt screen, and a DX sensor" being impossible, and Nikon not being able to tell whether anyone wants one. However, for so long as you can buy a camera on a show floor rather than having one made for you, that's impractical. Some combinations are genuinely mutually incompatible, though. Even so, I can't really answer "would I like a Sony RX100, a RX100-II or a RX100-III?" - very similar cameras. Thing is, I'd like a camera that's robust because there's no tilt screen, but I'd also like a tilt screen sometimes; I'd like a longish zoom range, but the image quality of the -III seems better, I'd like the aperture, and I'd like the integrated finder. (Though also a flash socket, obviously.)<br />

<br />

Options that are completely irrelevant? The Nikon 1 S2 is available in at least black, white, yellow and red. Checking a large UK internet retailer, they only have the black one in stock. If they were silly enough to stock all of them, they'd have to take the risk that some wouldn't sell - and stock management is harder the larger the number of variants you're dealing with. The result of the risk is that the prices go up. That ignores any difference that Nikon may have through not being able to share the production costs quite as effectively.<br />

<br />

Options that are <i>mostly</i> irrelevant? I suspect most, given the option, would go for either "does exactly what I need in my budget" or "has all the bells and whistles that aren't too expensive just in case I need them". Having lots of intermediate versions just makes it more likely that you don't quite get what you want, and increases stocking issues. And that's if you can actually work out what you're buying, which is hard when you're looking at old and badly labelled compact cameras. I speak as someone who's stood in a supermarket cross referencing against DPreview when I wanted a disposable camera.<br />

<br />

I'm for offering useful options, but I think the current situation isn't all that helpful for either the consumer or the manufacturer. It's not all that friendly to the retailer either. Which is probably why the whole market is collapsing. Well, that and camera phones.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>@ Chip: I'm recalling advising my boss to spend something like a month's wage on a Coolpix 990. So yes I was kind of a Coolpix customer, back in the pre DSLR days.<br>

I am not exactly intimidated by the Coolpix multitude. There seem the AW models for the motorbiker's pocket, big ones with maybe better lenses or endless zooms and small ones sold on a shoestring budged and something in between - Zoomrange and megapixel insanity are quoted so its not too hard to quickly pick half a dozen maybe interesting models, especially if you always wanted something in babyblue metallic finish.<br>

Personally I am grateful for the site showing the discontinued stuff still. If some hungry coworker offers a Coolpix XYZ for pizza & salad I'd fume, if Nikon told nothing about it online</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>So many cameras, but so little real variety. You could reduce the entire range to half a dozen and not lose much. How about a couple of more distinctive models - optical viewfinder? full retro controls?</p>