Nikon in difficulty?

[shadowblade]

Yes, exactly. Which is requisite to take best image possible.

You confuse Warren Buffett for Ansel Adam

That's not the question.

The question this thread is addressing is, 'Is Nikon in difficulty?' Not 'Does Nikon make the best gear?'

Two very different things.

As a photographer, I like Nikon gear a lot. The 14-24 was my mainstay lens for a long time, first on the 5D2, then on the A7r. I'd have gone for the D800e if they actually had a competent 24mm tilt-shift lens (i.e. one that didn't show up a lot of horrible CA when shifted to the extremes).

As an investor, the company is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, boy! (Or should I say "Oh, fanboy"?)

Looks like fanboys over at DP Review got bored and decided to come here instead 

[john beardsworth]

Yes, exactly. Which is requisite to take best image possible.

You confuse Warren Buffett for Ansel Adam

And don't you confuse the thread you'd like to read with this "Nikon in difficulty"?

[bcooter]

Though this forum doesn't seem to have much interest in motion imagery, regardless Nikon's response to digital cinema surprises me, especially if your trying to grow your market share.

They are the only major camera company that had no territory to protect.  No high end, limited at the medium,  not much on the low end, so unlike Canon on Sony, they didn't have to worry about making a whiz bang combination camera that would do high quality stills and motion at almost any price point and canalbilize other cameras in their line.

Also considering that prior to Canon, everyone in the cinema/motion biz used Nikon Lenses  if they used still camera lenses.   You could (still can) go to Century and get a Nikon mounted on any film camera, from 16mm Beaulieu  to Panavision, because in the film days, everybody knew that most Nikon lenses were matched in contrast and color, in a very specific way.  So they had a foothold in the industry.

Unless your on the management side of any of these companies, I doubt we know the whole story.

I'm just guessing, but I have this feeling that when Sony sells sensors, they might write in a restriction that says, yea you can make a video cam, but it can't have  ______ fill in the blanks.

Could be wrong, but with Nikon their omission of medium to high in motion capture doesn't seem to make sense, given their historic name and ability to make excellent cameras.



IMO

BC

[BernardLanguillier]

Could be wrong, but with Nikon their omission of medium to high in motion capture doesn't seem to make sense, given their historic name and ability to make excellent cameras.

This is a very valid point and one that I find puzzling also.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Osprey]

Probably for the same reason they never made motion cameras in the first place.  They don't seem that interested.

Though this forum doesn't seem to have much interest in motion imagery, regardless Nikon's response to digital cinema surprises me, especially if your trying to grow your market share.

They are the only major camera company that had no territory to protect.  No high end, limited at the medium,  not much on the low end, so unlike Canon on Sony, they didn't have to worry about making a whiz bang combination camera that would do high quality stills and motion at almost any price point and canalbilize other cameras in their line.

Also considering that prior to Canon, everyone in the cinema/motion biz used Nikon Lenses  if they used still camera lenses.   You could (still can) go to Century and get a Nikon mounted on any film camera, from 16mm Beaulieu  to Panavision, because in the film days, everybody knew that most Nikon lenses were matched in contrast and color, in a very specific way.  So they had a foothold in the industry.

Unless your on the management side of any of these companies, I doubt we know the whole story.

I'm just guessing, but I have this feeling that when Sony sells sensors, they might write in a restriction that says, yea you can make a video cam, but it can't have  ______ fill in the blanks.

Could be wrong, but with Nikon their omission of medium to high in motion capture doesn't seem to make sense, given their historic name and ability to make excellent cameras.



IMO

BC

[shadowblade]

Nikon has no background in digital video and their supporting hardware is likely quite underdeveloped compared to Sony or Canon in catering to video. This is quite evident in their still cameras, which underperform video-wise compared to Canon, Sony or even Panasonic still cameras. Doing so would also carry the same risk as their current offering - the complete lack of control over their sensor supply - while not really diversifying their market.

Digital video is a game for electronics companies (Sony and Canon), not companies whose main strength is optics and who outsource their electronics. Nikon's best bet is just to build lenses for everyone else's video cameras, not to make them themselves.

[NancyP]

Speaking of which, I had been interested in the Nikon DL compact mirrorless cameras (24 - 85 mm equiv), which were supposed to arrive last June, but which suffered some technical melt-down....still unclear if these cameras will see the light of day. The 18-50mm camera is an interesting landscape pocket camera.

[armand]

With a decent lens I would have bought the 18-50 several times by now. With one year delayed release I wonder if they will upgrade any specs.

[BrownBear]

The 18-50mm camera is an interesting landscape pocket camera.

No kidding.

I've been putting the Sony RX100V through it's paced over the last few weeks, and I'm sincerely impressed with one exception. I really pine for a few more silly millimeters at the short end of its 24-70 lens. I'd happily lose some at the long end in exchange for more at the bottom. An 18-50 would be perfect for me.

[HSakols]

I thought a landscape lens had to be at least 200mm?? 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

I sort of think I agree with your analysis.

What I see is that the cameras are good enough for stills, and have really been that for a long time. That applies to both Nikon and Canon. So, that means there is little need to upgrade.

I would say that there has been and will be some progress in resolution, but most photographers can do just fine with the around 20 MP that most cameras have. Canons used to have a disadvantage in DR at low ISO, but I don't know how much that matters. The few raw files I have seen from Canon I didn't feel that was an issue.

So, if you don't print very large and under extreme lighting conditions you don't need to upgrade. So market is a bit saturated.

As you point out, motion is important and there is a lot of room for improvement in that area. So motion features may be a good factor.

On the other hand, motion is different from stills. It needs a different skills set.

Sports photographers obviously need very fast AF and high frame rates. So improvements in those areas are important competitive factors.

But, my guess is that camera manufacturers need to adjust to falling sales, the boom is over.

Best regards
Erik

Though this forum doesn't seem to have much interest in motion imagery, regardless Nikon's response to digital cinema surprises me, especially if your trying to grow your market share.

They are the only major camera company that had no territory to protect.  No high end, limited at the medium,  not much on the low end, so unlike Canon on Sony, they didn't have to worry about making a whiz bang combination camera that would do high quality stills and motion at almost any price point and canalbilize other cameras in their line.

Also considering that prior to Canon, everyone in the cinema/motion biz used Nikon Lenses  if they used still camera lenses.   You could (still can) go to Century and get a Nikon mounted on any film camera, from 16mm Beaulieu  to Panavision, because in the film days, everybody knew that most Nikon lenses were matched in contrast and color, in a very specific way.  So they had a foothold in the industry.

Unless your on the management side of any of these companies, I doubt we know the whole story.

I'm just guessing, but I have this feeling that when Sony sells sensors, they might write in a restriction that says, yea you can make a video cam, but it can't have  ______ fill in the blanks.

Could be wrong, but with Nikon their omission of medium to high in motion capture doesn't seem to make sense, given their historic name and ability to make excellent cameras.



IMO

BC

[BrownBear]

So, if you don't print very large and under extreme lighting conditions you don't need to upgrade. So market is a bit saturated.

But, my guess is that camera manufacturers need to adjust to falling sales, the boom is over.

I agree that the boom is over for dSLR's but I reach further back, as in about 30 years, for the roots of the boom and the fairly quick onset of its demise.

Back then (the good old days?) anyone with sufficient limits on their credit cards could buy gear the manufacturers assured them was pro quality, and that they could make their fortune selling "nature" to magazines, stock houses, etc. Every Tom, Dick, George and MaryAnne was buying film cameras to get in on the rush, and with the rapid emergence of digital, of course they had to upgrade to keep pace with the market.

Trouble was, very few could manage to sell anything at market rates, so they started discounting, and ultimately giving away their photos "for exposure and market presence." Meanwhile magazines were dropping their rates, as were any other businesses who could get away with it. With the explosion of the internet and the ease of uploading digital images, enterprising businesses (ad companies, publishers, small businesses, etc) could find free photos and folks happy to give up their rights for that magic market exposure.

I bet something north of 95% of those same happy hopeful nature snappers have now switched to a pocket camera, or more likely a smart phone. They're taking photos for their own pleasure and especially for "sharing with online friends" rather than sales dreams. With the younger generation (emerging market?) in particular, it's all about the ever-present smart phone. Why spend money on a dSLR when they have a great camera at all times in their hand or hip pocket? For evidence, visit any national park and keep tabs on the cameras actually in use. Back about the time dSLR's were really catching on, you were NO ONE if you didn't have something big and black hanging around your neck and a monster bag at your side. Today in the same venues I'm surprised, even startled, to see ANYONE with a pro-grade dSLR. It's mostly smart phones, a few tablets, and even fewer pocket cameras.

In spite of what we think of ourselves as cutting-edge artists and even pros, we in fact constitute a very small and shrinking market segment. Manufacturers need to sell to the biggest markets and they'll put their innovation and marketing efforts into competing for a segment of that market.  I've never seen a number and Nikon certainly won't share (nor would any other manufacturer), but I really wonder how many pocket cameras they sell for every dSLR.  I bet it's thousands. 

As we strive for the very best gear for large photos in challenging light, we constitute a very small percentage of their sales. Are they going to continue dumping huge R&D $'s into keeping up with our needs, or are they going to divert the R&D $'s to products for the highly competitive non-dSLR market? I wish I had asked for a card or could remember the guy's name who I talked to at the Nikon booth in a recent show. He was succinct, if also smilingly curt: "In today's market pixel peeping is so much navel gazing."

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Personally, I print at decent size. My normal size is A2 and I sometimes print 1m wide. A few weeks ago we populated some corridors with photographs, mostly mine. The prints were mostly like 90cm x 60cm on canvas but also two panos on glossy paper at sizes 300 cm x 90 cm and 400 cm x 90 cm. half of the images were from 24 MP cameras and the other half from 42 MP Sony A7rII or 39 MP Phase One P45+.

But, most images we see are on screen. Also, the typical "f/8 and be there" shots are probably coming from cell phone cameras. Because, they are there, when things happen.

Best regards
Erik

[Tony Jay]

I have been watching this thread for some time without commenting.

Some of the reasoning in the last few posts I believe is flawed and so I offer a few thoughts for consideration.

Firstly, I agree that the DSLR market as a whole is in decline. However this does not sum up the situation in its entirety. The DSLR market has always been a stratified market. Analysing different market segments leads one to draw very different conclusions. The advent of the Smartphone has almost completely killed off the entry-level DSLR and has made inroads even into the mid-level DSLR market. The reason is simple: the Smartphone gives "good enough" results for those folks who were only ever incidental photographers. Obviously, the same applies to the dynamics behind the demise of the point and shoot cameras as well.

The situation at the upper end of the DSLR market is not much changed compared to several years ago. In general, folks who buy these cameras are in search of camera features that, especially in the digital era, are just not found in lower and mid-range DSLR's. I am thinking in terms of autofocus, shutter speed, DOF preview, large megapixel counts. These individuals are also likely likely to own the speciality lenses that allow them to produce images different from the pack, such as super telephoto lenses, tilt-shift lenses, telephoto macro lenses, and the like.

Going forward, I do see some issues. In the past there has always been a natural path for those are really interested in photography. I foresee a situation not too far in the future where this path is broken in several ways. First off, the Smartphone experience of photography is about as different from shooting with a DSLR (I also include mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras in this) as it is possible to get. Current DLSR's are clunky, generally with very poor menu systems, touch screen functionality is almost unheard of, wireless communication difficult or the solution is very expensive, and the list goes on!
The next major issue is cost: a Smartphone on a plan seems a much better financial alternative to an expensive enthusiast or pro-level DSLR! Add in a few good lenses and it starts to look like a mortgage!

So, the challenge for camera manufacturers is manifold:
Money-spinners of the past such as the point-and-shoot and the entry-level DSLR (in its current form) seem to have gone the way of the Dodo.
The high-end market is intact - for now. However, natural attrition will steadily erode this market unless a path of natural progression is provided into the top end of the market.
I believe that currently no camera manufacturer has put in place a strategic plan to move the enthusiastic Smartphone photographer into their DLSR offerings. I further believe that this challenge will define the market in the medium to long-term and that several manufacturers will see their demise in their failure to successfully meet this challenge.

Whether companies such as Nikon, and others, can even fight their way through their current woes to address this medium to long-term challenge to their viability also remains to be seen.

My $0.02 worth

Tony Jay

[Rob C]

Hi Tony,

That's a lot of beans for two cents; almost an entire hill of 'em!

I think I might add another single cent to your heap: I see the problem only partly as due to smartphones etc. making better cameras a bit redundant. I think what's happening (happened?) is that the people who were once interested in photography by seeing interesting/exciting/novel images in a magazine or in an advert, are now totally immune. We pretty much all suffer from total visual overkill. You can see whichever sort of pic you want amost immediately on the Internet. The thrill has gone.

What were once deemed interesting pictures that one might want to make too are no longer able to excite, let along push one to go spend magabucks in pursuit of doing the same.

I suspect that photographers, as in keen, will die out altogether in a few years. There is no longer a cachet.

From the cultural equivalent of a rock-star in the sixties, we are nothing, even at the top. All the point has gone. That ground has already been carpet-bombed. After Columbus, it no longer mattered, unless you drift into another thread here.

[Tony Jay]

Hi Rob - nice to hear from you!

I actually think that interest in photography has probably never been higher!
The killer for all camera manufacturers (apart from Sony who make nearly all the sensors for Smartphones) is that the new devotees are almost exclusively Smartphone users - neither right nor wrong, but merely a fact!

I also know Pro's who use their Smartphones a lot. Yes, the 1DX mark II and the 500mm f4.0 comes out for cricket and rugby, but in fact a lot of the shooting that these guys do they post on Instagram and other sites. Nearly all of this output is done with a Smartphone. Even Pro's still doing press photography capture an enormous amount, either stills or video, with their Smartphones.

A lot of the attraction that Smartphones do have for photography is the convenience and ease of the whole process. An image can be uploaded on Instagram, or sent to one's press agency, seconds after it is shot. There are also a legion of apps that allow one to make very quick and funky edits to those images according to one's tastes.

Like you, I do not believe that Smartphones are completely responsible for the current woes of camera manufacturers (some are self-inflicted) but I do think, as stated before, that every manufacturer is currently clueless when it comes to a strategy to deal with graduating Smartphone photographers onto more substantial cameras.

The industry as a whole (manufacturers, retailers,photographers, studios, agencies, printers and publishers) is still undergoing a massive shakedown that is not over yet, not by a long shot. The Smartphone revolution has shown, again(!), how tenuous is the grip that all industry players have in predicting and planning for the future.

Tony Jay

[Chris Livsey]

How bad is  it?  http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/how-bad-is-it.html

DSLRs fell to half their previous sales level in just four years. CIPA for ALL makers

Nikon Imaging group (all cameras/lenses)

2012 — 751 billion yen
2016 — 415b  (Nikon forecast)

[Paul2660]

Hi Rob - nice to hear from you!

I actually think that interest in photography has probably never been higher!
The killer for all camera manufacturers (apart from Sony who make nearly all the sensors for Smartphones) is that the new devotees are almost exclusively Smartphone users - neither right nor wrong, but merely a fact!

I also know Pro's who use their Smartphones a lot. Yes, the 1DX mark II and the 500mm f4.0 comes out for cricket and rugby, but in fact a lot of the shooting that these guys do they post on Instagram and other sites. Nearly all of this output is done with a Smartphone. Even Pro's still doing press photography capture an enormous amount, either stills or video, with their Smartphones.

A lot of the attraction that Smartphones do have for photography is the convenience and ease of the whole process. An image can be uploaded on Instagram, or sent to one's press agency, seconds after it is shot. There are also a legion of apps that allow one to make very quick and funky edits to those images according to one's tastes.

Like you, I do not believe that Smartphones are completely responsible for the current woes of camera manufacturers (some are self-inflicted) but I do think, as stated before, that every manufacturer is currently clueless when it comes to a strategy to deal with graduating Smartphone photographers onto more substantial cameras.

The industry as a whole (manufacturers, retailers,photographers, studios, agencies, printers and publishers) is still undergoing a massive shakedown that is not over yet, not by a long shot. The Smartphone revolution has shown, again(!), how tenuous is the grip that all industry players have in predicting and planning for the future.

Tony Jay

Smartphones are part of it, the other part is the "instant me" generation, where everything goes online, is seen for a day, and forgotten in 2.  Ask any of said users what their definition of a photograph is, and they will point to the image on their screen.  Long forgotten is that a photograph and photography consists of much more.  Most of or none of these same users have any understanding or want to understand what a "print" is. 

It's all instagram/facebook for "prints" and youtube for video. 

And I believe it's a direct correlation to the drop in sales, it's a total generational shift that more than likely will never return. 

So for that fact alone, Nikon may be in a bit of trouble as they still rely quite a bit on sales of products that an entire generation do not use, understand, or plan to use.  Canon, at least has their fingers in other products and can continue as a company. 

Just go stand at Inspiration Point in Yosemite, and look through  number of people.  I can assure you that of 100 people, 90 will be taking "selfies" and only 2 or so will be actually trying to take a photograph that might be printed at a later date. 

Is this wrong? no it's a natural process of selection and gravitation to newer technology which has had a huge impact on the average person's perception of what a photograph is and what it takes to create an image. 

Paul Caldwell

[dreed]

It was interesting to read some of these comments ... but one of the more interesting referred back to the dares of yore with film.

My recollection is that in 2001, a top of the line EOS (1V) camera was under $2000. That same top of the line camera today costs $4500 (lets use round numbers for the sake of discussion.)

I could go on more but ... digital photography has made dedicated (digital) cameras expensive.

But "total cost of ownership." Doesn't solve the initial sticker price problem.

Today $1000 buys an iPhone 7 plus (that "everyone" wants) that can take selfies and insta-photos very easily. What does $1000 get you with digital cameras? Does it get you one that "everyone wants"?

Not to forget that AT&Twill "sell" me an iPhone 7 for $30/month. At $30/month, who doesn't want one? How much did Canikony want me to buy a thing that only takes photos for?