Dieter Schaefer Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) February 13, 2017. Here's the official statement by Nikon about the cancellation of the release of the DL Series due to concerns regarding their profitability.<br><br> TOKYO - Nikon Corporation announced today that sales of the long-awaited DL series of premium compact camera, the DL18-50 f/1.8-2.8, DL24-85 f/1.8-2.8, and DL24-500 f/2.8-5.6, will be canceled. <br><br> A June, 2016 release was originally planned for the DL series. However, with the identification of issues with the integrated circuit for image processing, release of the three cameras was delayed indeterminately. <br><br> Since then, everyone involved has worked very hard to develop products with which our customers will be satisfied. However, it has been decided that sales of the DL series will be canceled due to concerns regarding their profitability considering the increase in development costs, and the drop in the number of expected sales due to the slow-down of the market. <br><br> We sincerely apologize to all those affected by this decision, especially those customers who waited so long for the cameras to be released, retailers and others whose business will be affected, for the inconvenience this decision may cause. Source: http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/0213_dl.htm <br><br> Well, the wait's over :rolleyes: <br><br> Had been mildly interested in the DL18-50 f/1.8-2.8.:cool: <br><br> Wonder if they also officially cancel the entire Nikon 1 Series? If it isn't dead already.;) <br><br> Nikon also issues a Notice of Recognition of Extraordinary Loss: http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/20170213_1_e.pdf (PDF file) Nikon Group is currently under a fundamental company-wide restructuring to improve its corporate value as shifting from a strategy pursuing revenue growth to one pursuing profit enhancement.<br><br> In accordance with this restructuring, the Group recorded extraordinary loss of 29,790 million yen, mainly incurred from inventory write-downs/write-off in Semiconductor Lithography Business, as restructuring expenses for the nine months ended December 31, 2016. <br><br> The Notice of Restructuring was issued November 18, 2016: http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/20161108_1_e.pdf (PDF file).<br><br> Source: http://www.nikon.com/news/index.htm Edited February 13, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 Alongside the above: Revision of the Financial Forecast for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2017: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2017/20170213_e.pdf (PDF file) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Wow, that's gotta be a pretty costly screw-up, not to mention massive loss of faith. I hope the 1 Series carries on. I want to put my 200-500mm of a V4, or maybe someone will hack the J5 and take that lens off the FORBIDDEN list. Crazy crippling mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Nikon have had a lot of problems last year; DL launch delay and eventual cancellation, Snapbridge widely criticised for difficult and unreliable connectivity, slow transfers, and limited functionality; Keymission reported to have problems with app reliability and image quality. If Nikon want to sell products and make a profit, they should bring out working products to the market. If people widely start to think that Nikon products probably don't work then it will be a disaster to the company and its long time customers as well. Interestingly, Nikon's high end DSLR products released in 2016 (D5, D500, 70-200/2.8E, 105/1.4 and 19mm PC) are widely regarded as excellent. I personally use three of those products and they are as close to flawless as I've seen. But Nikon's overall market performance doesn't seem to follow the success of the flagship products now. I used to think Nikon were able to sell so many compact cameras to consumers because they were such a well known brand in photography, but today that doesn't seem to be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Well, I was waiting for an announcement. :-) I promise I'll get that new feature survey out soon and give Nikon some ideas. But I absolutely don't mind if they sell me a D820 first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 The world is rapidly changing. I hope they figure out the niche they need to move forward.. I guess I am surprised they would want to develop a digital camera like that as the sales would be dismal anyway. The cell phone is king now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member69643 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Nikon has been systematically screwing over its user base for years; each new lens technology they develop leaves older-body owners in the lurch. Whoever thought it'd be a good idea to develop an excellent 200-500mm full frame lens that's crippled on the F6 isn't going to be much loved by owners of that legendary body. That said, I recently swapped my Canon 7dMkII for Nikon's D500, although as an F6 owner and lover, my lens of choice was the Tamron 150-600mm. Nikon gained a sale and lost one in the same breath. That's not a smart way to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Well, there are plenty of lenses that the F6 is compatible with, available, both new and second hand. I've been generally happy with the way Nikon manages transitions to newer technology, with the exception of the D70 which didn't support metering manual focus lenses (but it had a poor viewfinder so metering alone would not have solved the problem). Since that they improved compatibility; the D200 has a pentaprism viewfinder and full metering support on Ai(S) lenses, including a new feature (matrix metering). I keep my cameras up to date though I have one which is several generations old, but it does support E lenses thanks to a firmware upgrade. The cut off point for E lenses seems to be 2007: bodies introduced before that year do not support body aperture control on E lenses. PC-E 24, 45, 85 are exceptions as there is a button to stop down and open up the aperture and these lenses have aperture rings whereas newer E lenses do not. I do not see this as a problem as I would not want to use any digital body made before 2007 anyway. 35mm film users have plenty of lenses available though some new lenses won't be fully supported as you note. The other option would be to cut off compatibility alltogether, which is what Nikon doesn't want to do. If you use a new mid or high end camera body, it supports almost every Nikkor made since the 1970s. This is the most important part for me as older lenses still have value but newer cameras have much better AF and image quality than cameras made before 2007. The cell phone typically has a fixed focal length lens, so it cannot do ultrawide, and it cannot do long tele, nor do they have optical zooms. There may be some unusual smartphone with a zoom lens but people generally prefer their phones to be thin so this is not a successful approach. So there is plenty of advantage from implementing compact cameras with zoom lenses. Finally the DL18-50 would have been the only fixed lens camera with an ultrawide angle lens as far as I know. A completely unique product. The smartphone cameras are slow to focus and there is considerable lag from press of the button to the actual taking of the picture. The DL series would have taken 20fps and have virtually instant AF similar to the Nikon 1 series, so plenty of advantages there as well. But probably the R&D and manufacturing cost were increasing too much for the products to be seen profitable, so Nikon pulled the plug. I would have been keen to buy the DL24-85. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 As Ilkka say,s while I'm sympathetic to Patrick (who presumably did have the choice of both Tokina and Sigma alternatives), there comes a point where new capabilities are going to introduce incompatibilities. I can't imagine the number of F6s out there is enough to bother Nikon's bottom line at this point; I'm not crying that my F5 also wouldn't work with the 200-500 (partly because if I'm using 200-500 I'm usually after detail, and I'm not going to get it out of 35mm film; I can always use my 300mm f/4 non-VR and my TC-14). "E" is of mild but genuine advantage, and we've had nine years of cameras supporting it; I kind of expected Nikon to move long ago (when they went AF-S). I've plenty more compatibility issues elsewhere in my life - Nikon do respectably well, even if I'd like them to make a "compatible with absolutely everything" body for amusement value. Of course, in an anniversary year, they could always decide to make an F7 and keep Patrick happy!<br /> <br /> The lack of the unusual Nikon compacts is unfortunate, and I struggle to see how they could have got this close to production while being stalled for so long. That said, I have to admit I had no interest in getting one. I have a V1 that I occasionally use for high frame rate video, but honestly if I was after a replacement it would likely be one of the newer RX100 line (I already have a mk1 for when I don't want to carry my D810). And yes, I use my cell phone for a fair number of photos. Someone should be making decent compacts, because the market hasn't gone away entirely, but whether Nikon really think that's where they should focus their efforts is another matter. The advice for compacts has been "buy Canon or Sony" with very few exceptions (occasionally Fuji) for as long as I can remember - they clearly made some money at it in the past, but Nikon had to jump the market leaders to make a splash here, and if they did, it wasn't by a huge margin. As for the 1 series... well, as a discounted way to get 1200fps video in a weird aspect ratio I can't complain, but there's no world in which I'm going to pay which Nikon have charged in the recent past for a new 1 series body. Either the range needed enough love to get a significant following, or it needed to die and stop costing development money. Given what the 1" compacts can do these days (well, for some years) and the mature micro 4/3 market, I think Nikon should concentrate on going upscale with more margins.<br /> <br /> But I know nothing about running a business. I hope they stay profitable for long enough to keep churning out the kit I need, though. I sweetly promise to save up for a 400 f/2.8 FL and eventually pay them a lot of money for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 All we need is a Df2 and some nice little metal AF lenses. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Nikon seems to be really stumbling in its ability to come up with a viable small camera system. I would think they could create something nice using the M43 platform. That way they would not have to immediately be diverting resources into new lenses too, and M43 has certainly taken hold. You know things aren't going well in Nikon Land when a 22 yr. Nikon user like me hasn't been interested in any of the new Nikon product for the past year, but I am very excited about the rumored Sigma 14mm f1.8! Kent in SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) It seems the market for digital camera's is pretty flat. The Pro line camera's are hanging in there. I think Fuji/Sony are selling the mirrorless camera's pretty well for some Pros and a lot of Hobby snappers. The Fuji X-Pro 2 seems to be very popular with the street shooters because it has a rangefinder type thing going on. . The average consumer is happy with the cell phone and is not likely to buy a compact camera these days. Take what I said with a grain of salt as the world is a big place and I do not know what people are buying in other places. I just know what I see people around here doing. I met a kid today while hiking a Pinnacles National Park and he had a Sony mirrorless with a 900mm equivalent zoom lens on there. He wanted to take some Condor photos and I hike there every week so I knew where to go for that and helped him with the trails and such. (He was from Washington so did not know the trails or where to go) I try to keep my eye out for Condor #36 because that is the first one I have seen up close. The young man is totally going to get some great shots as he had enough lens and he was headed to the right place. Nice day out also. My longest lens is 50mm but I carry a set of compact binoculars when hiking and enjoy looking around at the birds and just anything out there. Edited February 13, 2017 by rossb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Well, I can report that in my recent trip to Yellowstone, I was managing to get shots of distant wildlife that the rest of the tour really didn't (unless they didn't share) - including some with micro 4/3 systems and superzoom compacts. The down side was that I tended to sink an extra couple of inches into the snow below the trail the guide had broken, and a D810 + TC14 + 200-500 isn't the most portable thing in the world - and I missed some shots because of time for lens changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share Posted February 14, 2017 I would think they could create something nice using the M43 platform. They would have a lot of catching up to do. Just looked at the Olympus E-M1 MkII and aside from an atrociously bad menu system, that's one heck of a camera. It's IBIS beats what Nikon (and Sony) have to offer in terms of image stabilization by quite a bit. Granted, that's their top-of-the-line model that sells for as much as a Nikon D500. <br><br>In any case, entering m4/3 would just have shifted Nikon competing more with Panasonic and directly with Olympus vs competing with Sony on the 1" sensor camera front; the DL Series might have had a hard time gaining market share against the Sony RX100 and RX10 cameras (and some Panasonic and Canon offerings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 I don't think any of the manufacturers is making a profit from micro four thirds equipment. It seems the manufacturers are making those products as a hobby. Of MILC cameras, 35mm full frame has the most space for new manufacturers to enter, basically only Sony and Leica are making products in this format. I believe they can also sell those products at profitable prices. It would also make sense for Nikon given that the majority of their interesting lenses are already for this sensor size. It's a whole another matter of course to make those lenses work in a useful way with fast AF in a mirrorless camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Time for a clean start in the 100th year? Is there a big enough market for FX mirrorless? Their financial model seemed to be calling specifically for profit. Although I'm not completely sure I understand what... "shifting from a strategy pursuing revenue growth to one pursuing profit enhancement." actually means regarding cameras and lenses... apart from the suicidal, 'make them more cheaply, and sell them for more $$$', they do enough of that already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 I think that an optical rangefinder digital camera might do well out there. Leica has one that is to expensive and Fuji has one but the optical rangefinder has an odd way of focusing it. I think there is room for a camera that gets it all correct and priced in the Fuji area. I do not really follow digital camera's that much so forgive me if there are others that I did not know about. I just shoot 35mm is all. I have a 4/3rds camera in the closet but I do not use it. I just do not like the EVF or live view thing. The rest of it is fine however. Photoshop is not needed with it as the pictures are fine right out of the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Off topic, but who is the guy/gal about 6 posts up that seem to be totally anonymous? o_O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 "shifting from a strategy pursuing revenue growth to one pursuing profit enhancement." actually means regarding cameras and lenses... apart from the suicidal, 'make them more cheaply, and sell them for more $$$', they do enough of that already! I take it to mean that they want to make higher end products for specialty applications where there is less competition and a healthy profit margin due to the high prices. They want to make something expensive in small numbers rather than something cheap in large numbers where they are too dependent on (declining) volume in an intensely competed market. The 105/1.4 and 19mm PC are examples of this kind of products they want to focus on. The D5, D500, and successor of the D810 also belong to the category. The new 70-200/2.8 E FL is a lens more expensive than its predecessor but improved in a dozen ways, it is getting reviews such as lensrentals's blog where they regard it as the best 70-200. But also the most expensive, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 As an outsider, I think part of Nikon's problem is their higher than the competition prices. I assume they used to charge more trading on the legendary name and they seemed to get away with it, but I think this may be no longer working. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share Posted February 14, 2017 Off topic, but who is the guy/gal about 6 posts up that seem to be totally anonymous? o_O Likely a remnant of yesterday's "bug fix" when user names appeared for a time and the came back (some even with the correct screen name). It wasn't clear if one had to log out and back in or edit the screen name and save the change or if everything was supposed to be automatic. The post in question above is by Kent Staubus, maybe things will sort themselves out when he logs back in. One could not post when one didn't have a screen name (an error message appeared asking for one - which, of course, couldn't be entered); so it can't be from a post made during that bug fix period. I think that an optical rangefinder digital camera might do well out there. Possible. Though I wouldn't want one. Outdated concept with a lot of issues that to me don't outweigh the few positives. But also the most expensive, probably. I think Sony/Zeiss is first in line for that trophy. Is there a big enough market for FX mirrorless? Probably, but the bar has been set quite high already. And if indeed mirrorless can be produced cheaper than DSLR, then the manufacturers don't pass those savings on to the consumer but use it for profit enhancement. Sony A7RII costs about the same as Nikon D810. Canon seems to have moved their prices for the 5DIV and 5DS/SR up above those of Sony's A7RII though. I don't think any of the manufacturers is making a profit from micro four thirds equipment. I thought Olympus was in the black last year but I could be mistaken. As an outsider, I think part of Nikon's problem is their higher than the competition prices. I'd say that in a one-to-one comparison, Sony/Zeiss has them beat for virtually every lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 So something out of Left Field, bit like the D810A, maybe a true Mono FX? I gather there's a true resolution increase to be had that way. I suppose you then end with an exceptionally high-res astro camera, where you can use color filters to generate color images. Robin, you think a bit of Laurel Resting has been going on? I agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 I have not noticed in general higher pricing for Nikkors than comparable competitors. Nikon makes some lenses that are more expensive than Canon, and others are less expensive. For example Canon's 11-24/4 is much more expensive than Nikon's 14-24/2.8, and so is their 200-400/4 (yes, I'm aware of the differences). The 200-500/5.6 is regarded very price competitive for its quality. The f/1.8 AF-S prime series from Nikon also is excellent for value, image quality and portability. I have the 20/1.8 which I think could cost twice what it costs, and still it would be worth buying. It just depends on which lens you look at. The new Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are priced at the top of their classes, which was also true of Canon's latest versions at the time they were launched (which should be the case if they are regarded the best of their classes at time of launch). The price goes down as the product is longer in the market, to compensate for reducing demand. On the other hand, on the body side, Canon priced the 5D III and 5D IV higher than D800 or D810 at the time of launch. If comparing between Nikon and Sony, I think Nikon's f/1.8 primes easily are offered at lower prices than lenses with equal aperture and image quality on Sony's side. So it all depends on what one looks at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 I thought Olympus was in the black last year but I could be mistaken. But to be genuinely profitable it would have to be profitable over the course of the product line's history, not just for a short period of time after many years of pouring money into the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 For the lenses I have, or have had in past in Canon the cost of the lenses in total would come to $8992, in Nikon the equivalents are $10,843. Not such a big deal necessarily, but not insignificant either. This difference is the "Nikon premium". 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 100mm macro, 16-35 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, 100-400mm Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now