No Nikon DL range

Fuguru said:
Some people want the best possible glass for their DX bodies, DX lenses should have a size and cost advantage over a FF equivalent lens and there has always been demand, just look at the requests all over the internet.
Having moved from a FF system to Crop, you have to accept that their is size and weight penalty is most lenses when compared (FF vs DX).
Click to expand...
Size yes, cost not necessarily. Fuji lenses for example tend to be similar cost (or more) to the equivalent FX Nikon lens.

Its not just this one reason why Nikon are losing more and more cash and customers year after year.
Nikon have been too slow to react to the changing market, its only a matter of time they are consumed like Kodak...... I have seen more innovation in other brands which is what Nikon should be doing considering they have been around a lot longer.
They have rested on their brand name/image..

Bye bye Nikon :D
Click to expand...
You sound like you are gloating about that ... sorry but (and yes this comes from a fan of Nikon's current cameras though in the past I have bought Canon, Olympus and Minolta) it will be a sad day should Nikon fail - and they are a LONG way from that. You may have missed it, but most of the write downs (the reported losses are actually not making as much profit as predicted rather than loosing money) were NOT in the camera division.

You complain they are too slow to react, yet the dropping the DL cameras is actually a reaction to not being able to produce something competitive. I imagine further culls will come and some people will be sad that their favourite products end. There is going to be a period of pain and Nikon do need to make changes - mostly in the software side and perhaps marketing and customer service - but hopefully a leaner, stronger company will come out at the end.
 
Eloise said:
You complain they are too slow to react, yet the dropping the DL cameras is actually a reaction to not being able to produce something competitive. I imagine further culls will come and some people will be sad that their favourite products end. There is going to be a period of pain and Nikon do need to make changes - mostly in the software side and perhaps marketing and customer service - but hopefully a leaner, stronger company will come out at the end.
Click to expand...

Far too late, they should have known the costs up front way before. Announcing the DL line and then a year later having to cancel it, that’s just embarrassing and show’s them to be incompetent. It may sound like I'm Nikon bashing and in a way I am, I've always had Nikon DSLR's and it really annoys me at some of the things they done and the situation they have got themselves into.

minnnt said:
What fast EF-S primes do Canon have that are 28mm equivalent? The only reason Fuji/M4/3 have them is because they're a one sized sensor system. (With exception to the MF system)
Click to expand...

They don't, but they are not the ones in abit of trouble. If I was Nikon I wouldn't be looking over to what Canon are doing but try listening to your customers.
 
Last edited:
As westerners it can be difficult for us to understand Japanese companies / managers. They can have different priorities and thought processes and can often make different decisions, decisions which to us may seem strange or indeed daft...

I used to deal with Japanese companies, less so now, and often their decisions seem to be based on not losing face and that can involve not listening to what advisors are saying, not looking at the competition and continuing on a buisiness course which to us seems suicidal or indeed illegal. Changing course may be seen as admitting they were wrong and listening to advice and acting upon it could be seen as admitting weakness or ineptitude.

I hope Nikon survive.
 
Last edited:
Willo said:
Far too late, they should have known the costs up front way before. Announcing the DL line and then a year later having to cancel it, that’s just embarrassing and show’s them to be incompetent.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong ... but there have been several unexpected factors in the last 12 months ... better they cut their losses (if it was too late) than chasing bad after worse. Hopefully this may lead to some hard questions being asked of Nikon's management.
 
woof woof said:
I used to deal with Japanese companies, less so now, and often their decisions seem to be based on not losing face and that can involve not listening to what advisors are saying, not looking at the competition and continuing on a buisiness course which to us seems suicidal or indeed illegal. Changing course may be seen as admitting they were wrong and listening to advice and acting upon it could be seen as admitting weakness or ineptitude.
Click to expand...
Watching the last Samurai might give some indication of the problems Japanese management face... (Sorry hope that didn't come across as racist)
 
Eloise said:
Watching the last Samurai might give some indication of the problems Japanese management face... (Sorry hope that didn't come across as racist)
Click to expand...
My gf works for a Japanese company and deals with Japanese directors day to day, they're a nightmare.
 
Fuguru said:
Some people want the best possible glass for their DX bodies, DX lenses should have a size and cost advantage over a FF equivalent lens and there has always been demand, just look at the requests all over the internet.
Having moved from a FF system to Crop, you have to accept that their is size and weight penalty is most lenses when compared (FF vs DX)
Click to expand...

But, are you still talking primes? There can't be that kind of demand if Canon produce only 2 - assuming like-for-like needs and requirements. It seems that the market research Nikon has done is now being poo-pooed by the nay-sayers! Do you see the same demand from Canon crop users across the Internet?

I still hold to the argument that if you want quality then you use FX lenses. I see no merit in doubling production lines - Canon haven't! Not that I hold much store by that but I'm thinking commercially. I also hold to the idea that much of Canon's photographic ventures/expertise/investment is bouyed through it's other capital ventures.

At least if you own Nikon and have both DX and FX bodies you can make do with one set of lenses as opposed to the other lot who would need two :)
 
Nikon show no innovation?

Have they not made one of the smallest FX cameras on the market which I belive was DSLR of the year (D750) and now have again won DSLR of the year with the D500?

Both these cameras to me shows that Nikon still have a bright future ahead of them
 
chuckles said:
But, are you still talking primes? There can't be that kind of demand if Canon produce only 2 - assuming like-for-like needs and requirements. It seems that the market research Nikon has done is now being poo-pooed by the nay-sayers! Do you see the same demand from Canon crop users across the Internet?

I still hold to the argument that if you want quality then you use FX lenses. I see no merit in doubling production lines - Canon haven't! Not that I hold much store by that but I'm thinking commercially. I also hold to the idea that much of Canon's photographic ventures/expertise/investment is bouyed through it's other capital ventures.

At least if you own Nikon and have both DX and FX bodies you can make do with one set of lenses as opposed to the other lot who would need two :)
Click to expand...
In ff land there are more choices but for aps-c there are certainly fewer... especially if you're looking for a wider than 30mm f1.4/1.8 prime to use on an aps-c camera. ff ones if they exist will possibly be bigger and more expensive.

This may not actually matter though as don't the vast majority just buy the camera and kit lens? I've no idea what percentage of aps-c buyers are like us lot here with multiple lenses.
 
JJ! said:
Nikon show no innovation?

Have they not made one of the smallest FX cameras on the market which I belive was DSLR of the year (D750) and now have again won DSLR of the year with the D500?

Both these cameras to me shows that Nikon still have a bright future ahead of them
Click to expand...
Your view is nice but at odds with the reality of Nikon's current position.
 
JJ! said:
Nikon show no innovation?

Have they not made one of the smallest FX cameras on the market which I belive was DSLR of the year (D750) and now have again won DSLR of the year with the D500?

Both these cameras to me shows that Nikon still have a bright future ahead of them
Click to expand...

I agree, for me Nikon bodies have been better than Canon's for a number of years. But it's not translating into sales and marketshare, so something is missing here. You can have the most amazing camera that trumps anything else in the market but if it's not selling it means nothing.
 
woof woof said:
Your view is nice but at odds with the reality of Nikon's current position.
Click to expand...
I don't think JJ is at odds with reality ... the cameras are good they just aren't outselling Canon despite being good. Thats down to marketing (IMO) and possibly reputation of after sales service though that appears to be more a Nikon USA issue than Nikon generally.

Nikon are also failing at keeping moving with the software side (SnapBridge for starters - great idea bad implementation).
 
Fuguru said:
Some people want the best possible glass for their DX bodies, DX lenses should have a size and cost advantage over a FF equivalent lens and there has always been demand, just look at the requests all over the internet.
Having moved from a FF system to Crop, you have to accept that their is size and weight penalty is most lenses when compared (FF vs DX).

Its not just this one reason why Nikon are losing more and more cash and customers year after year.
Nikon have been too slow to react to the changing market, its only a matter of time they are consumed like Kodak...... I have seen more innovation in other brands which is what Nikon should be doing considering they have been around a lot longer.
They have rested on their brand name/image..

Bye bye Nikon :D
Click to expand...
Clearly both Canon and Nikon feel that DX primes are not warranted/cost effective, it's not as though the f1.8 FF primes are big and heavy. How much weight would they save? Probably less than 50g or so, is that worth having a totally different set of lenses for?

Out if interest, do Canon users also moan about not having EF-S primes?
 
I was just trying to look at the positives lol

Reality is overrated.
 
It may be a supply problem too.... No John Lewis store has the range of Nikon kit it once had, nor Dixons Group et al.

Hey, there may be a whole raft of reasons for this - I don't know. Simply perhaps there's not the turnover for Nikon as there once was, therefore don't stock - rinse and repeat!

A long way from they've pulled the plug on the DL range ... but why throw good money after bad? [Leyland should've done that with the Allegro :p ]
 
chuckles said:
But, are you still talking primes? There can't be that kind of demand if Canon produce only 2 - assuming like-for-like needs and requirements. It seems that the market research Nikon has done is now being poo-pooed by the nay-sayers! Do you see the same demand from Canon crop users across the Internet?

I still hold to the argument that if you want quality then you use FX lenses. I see no merit in doubling production lines - Canon haven't! Not that I hold much store by that but I'm thinking commercially. I also hold to the idea that much of Canon's photographic ventures/expertise/investment is bouyed through it's other capital ventures.

At least if you own Nikon and have both DX and FX bodies you can make do with one set of lenses as opposed to the other lot who would need two :)
Click to expand...

snerkler said:
Clearly both Canon and Nikon feel that DX primes are not warranted/cost effective, it's not as though the f1.8 FF primes are big and heavy. How much weight would they save? Probably less than 50g or so, is that worth having a totally different set of lenses for?

Out if interest, do Canon users also moan about not having EF-S primes?
Click to expand...

I see where both of you are coming from, but say you’re a DX shooter and you don’t have a massive budget or you’re a street tog and you want a camera that is small and light. One lens you’ll probably want is a 35mm eqv. You will have 2 choices which would be 24mm 1.4 or 1.8, 1.4 is discounted on price and weight which leaves the 1.8 which is £600, fairly big and heavy for a crop lens.

Looking at other systems, they will have that 35mm evq lens which will be smaller and cheaper. Even Canon has a 24mm pancake lens for £150 (albeit 2.8) for crop. The 35mm should be a standard in all lens line ups. If you want a prime below 28mm then you’re hosed.

As to whether Canon users want faster primes? No idea, don’t hang out those reprobates ;)
 
Last edited:
Does everybody here read Thom Hogan? His coverage of Nikon is consistently informed and intelligent.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/

Here's his commentary on Nikon software, which to my mind is absolutely bang on:
Nikon has been dabbling at digital photography software for 25 years now. Their preferred style is to license a modest framework or base from a digital imaging software company at low cost, then take over the project and code and in so doing, ruin it. ... It's happened at least five times that I can count, all with the same end result. ... Most of the things Nikon has created look like projects by interns who didn't quite know how to make things work right, and had no manager directing them.
Click to expand...
 
Willo said:
I see where both of you are coming from, but say you’re a DX shooter and you don’t have a massive budget or you’re a street tog and you want a camera that is small and light. One lens you’ll probably want is a 35mm eqv. You will have 2 choices which would be 24mm 1.4 or 1.8, 1.4 is discounted on price and weight which leaves the 1.8 which is £600, fairly big and heavy for a crop lens.

Looking at other systems, they will have that 35mm evq lens which will be smaller and cheaper. Even Canon has a 24mm pancake lens for £150 (albeit 2.8) for crop. The 35mm should be a standard in all lens line ups. If you want a prime below 28mm then you’re hosed.

As to whether Canon users want faster primes? No idea, don’t hang out those reprobates ;)
Click to expand...

I still reckon it's a lot to expect.... thinking out loud here. Why would I want a D500? Decent, robust body, function and superb sensor; more than likely wildlife or Sport with some 'reach' Why would I want a D3300, D5600? probably because I'm starting out so would prefer to cover all F/Ls with (cheaper) zooms.... As a beginner I probably wouldn't know about or have been offered Primes in the shops I visit or mail order.

So the D500 user probably would go after a (Pro) Prime with a view to later upgrade - certainly wouldn't worry about weight or other penalties.

Personally, think Nikon have the lens options pretty well balanced. And I can still use my pre 1970's 85mm f1.8 on my D800 (and D7100) - I truly hope they don't fold! A true system :)
 
chuckles said:
I still reckon it's a lot to expect.... thinking out loud here. Why would I want a D500? Decent, robust body, function and superb sensor; more than likely wildlife or Sport with some 'reach' Why would I want a D3300, D5600? probably because I'm starting out so would prefer to cover all F/Ls with (cheaper) zooms.... As a beginner I probably wouldn't know about or have been offered Primes in the shops I visit or mail order.

So the D500 user probably would go after a (Pro) Prime with a view to later upgrade - certainly wouldn't worry about weight or other penalties.

Personally, think Nikon have the lens options pretty well balanced. And I can still use my pre 1970's 85mm f1.8 on my D800 (and D7100) - I truly hope they don't fold! A true system :)
Click to expand...

But what if that D3xxx, D5xxx, D7xxx user got abit more into photographer and wanted a 35mm or below prime? They have no options apart from moving system.
 
Willo said:
I see where both of you are coming from, but say you’re a DX shooter and you don’t have a massive budget or you’re a street tog and you want a camera that is small and light. One lens you’ll probably want is a 35mm eqv. You will have 2 choices which would be 24mm 1.4 or 1.8, 1.4 is discounted on price and weight which leaves the 1.8 which is £600, fairly big and heavy for a crop lens.
Click to expand...
Canon's 24mm isn't a 35mm equivalent though it would be 38.5mm. Canon don't even have a "standard" equivalent for their EF-S

Nikon offer you a 10.5mm wide (albeit fisheye); 35mm (50mm equivalent) and 40mm and 85mm "macro" lenses. A wider, non-fisheye lens is whats missing ... around 16-18mm f/1.8 or so. But then would it sell except in a small quantity to the enthusiasts in forums like here. People who are buying the level of a D500 wouldn't buy a D500 if they were wanting wide angle ... yes Nikon are "forcing" people into FX but is that a bad thing?
 
Willo said:
But what if that D3xxx, D5xxx, D7xxx user got abit more into photographer and wanted a 35mm or below prime? They have no options apart from moving system.
Click to expand...
Essentially what Nikon should do is abandon the D3xxx and D7xxx and introduced a D8x00 as a full frame. Then the upgrade option IS full frame! :)

Though there are a lot of zoom options available too.
 
Last edited:
We can all speculate all we want but the hard facts & figures speak for themselves. Nikon have been going down hill for years in terms of profits, after all that's why they are in the market, to make money.
Having to cut staff numbers and close down certain operations isn't a positive at all.
Yes I agree Nikon make good cameras & lenses some of which win awards of the year etc but it doesn't seem to be helping Nikon's profits one bit.
Then Nikon are trying to go into the action Camera market to take on GoPro? What were they thinking? That market is also shrinking!!

It will be sad if Nikon do go as I prefer them over Canon minus the QC issues! Lol

:eek:
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
II think someone else would take Nikon on rather than it disappearing altogether.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this has been posted already but Nikon are part of the Mitsubishi group. I struggle to see they'd let this go unless there was a coherent plan to come back
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Clearly both Canon and Nikon feel that DX primes are not warranted/cost effective
Click to expand...

I suspect thats because the majority of people who buy their entry level systems are looking for the ease provided by a zoom and they know they wouldn't sell many. DX users buying bodies like the d500 will be able to make an informed choice when buying
 
Willo said:
But what if that D3xxx, D5xxx, D7xxx user got abit more into photographer and wanted a 35mm or below prime? They have no options apart from moving system.
Click to expand...
There's always the 24mm f2.8d. Still can be found new, and plenty of used around. Light at 270g too.
 
Not sure why Fuji prime lenses keep being brought up as comparison to Nikon DX. The only DX lens that bears comparison to XF Fuji's is the 17-55 DX.

Nikon's other DX lenses are roughly on a par with the Fuji XC zooms.
 
frod said:
Not sure why Fuji prime lenses keep being brought up as comparison to Nikon DX. The only DX lens that bears comparison to XF Fuji's is the 17-55 DX.

Nikon's other DX lenses are roughly on a par with the Fuji XC zooms.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point though. Fuji have a comprehensive range of high quality DX lenses and Nikon don't.
 
StewartR said:
That's the whole point though. Fuji have a comprehensive range of high quality DX lenses and Nikon don't.
Click to expand...
it's probably worth thinking about how Fuji aren't utilising their APS-C system to drive sales to their GFX system as well, except through customer satisfaction, perhaps.
 
StewartR said:
That's the whole point though. Fuji have a comprehensive range of high quality DX lenses and Nikon don't.
Click to expand...
But Fuji don't have FF, if they did maybe they'd also just make FF primes that are compatible with both.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Which would defeat the object of a small compact system, and make the glass bigger, just like the Sony A7R's and therefore be very little different from a regular DSLR in format. Just not going to happen!!!
Click to expand...
We're going around in a circle... Fuji don't do FF because it would make the glass bigger (if they weren't building two sets of glass) and Nikon don't do many high end DX lenses because they also do full frame!

frod said:
Not sure why Fuji prime lenses keep being brought up as comparison to Nikon DX. The only DX lens that bears comparison to XF Fuji's is the 17-55 DX.

Nikon's other DX lenses are roughly on a par with the Fuji XC zooms.
Click to expand...
Because what's being said is to make high quality DX lenses means they wouldn't be cheaper than FX lenses, just like Fuji lenses aren't cheaper than an equivalent Nikon (FX) lens.
 
Eloise said:
We're going around in a circle... Fuji don't do FF because it would make the glass bigger (if they weren't building two sets of glass) and Nikon don't do many high end DX lenses because they also do full frame!


Because what's being said is to make high quality DX lenses means they wouldn't be cheaper than FX lenses, just like Fuji lenses aren't cheaper than an equivalent Nikon (FX) lens.
Click to expand...

Not sure I see the circle. I own both FX and DX Nikon bodies but purchased Fuji XE1&2 because of the availability of small high quality bodies and lens. Nikon have no equivalent of a Fuji 14mm or even the 18-55mm (The Nikon versions are bigger and I doubt they are as sharp. I use the XE2 as a 'normal' holiday family camera and the XE1 is IR modified and replaced a D70. I would have preferred to purchase Nikon cameras and lens to fulfil these roles but nothing was available. I was also interested in the wide angle DL, now another non Nikon purchase.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Which would defeat the object of a small compact system, and make the glass bigger, just like the Sony A7R's and therefore be very little different from a regular DSLR in format. Just not going to happen!!!
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point ;)
 
@Kaolin well my point was two fold. (And you have to realise that these comments were in response to some specific points people raised).

First off, Fuji have a full range of "crop" lenses but that's because they ONLY have DX cameras. Olympus and Panasonic obviously also have their m43 lenses, but they have no other format.

On the other hand Sony have a wider range of crop lenses for E mount, but many predate full frame E mount and I wouldn't describe it as a "full range" in any case. Pentax and Canon (as well as Sony A mount) are the other manufacturers and they don't have a full range of lenses for crop sensor either.

There are a couple of "holes" in Nikon's DX range, but they are hardly worse than any comparable situation. A wide angle rectilinear lens is missing.

Second it was claimed that if Nikon had a DX range they would be cheaper (as well as smaller / lighter) than the Nikon FX offerings, but based on the evidence of Fuji high quality DX lenses wouldn't be cheap and wouldn't be significantly lighter.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I used to deal with Japanese companies, less so now, and often their decisions seem to be based on not losing face and that can involve not listening to what advisors are saying, not looking at the competition and continuing on a business course which to us seems suicidal or indeed illegal. Changing course may be seen as admitting they were wrong and listening to advice and acting upon it could be seen as admitting weakness or ineptitude.
Click to expand...
I don't think Nikon listen to their customers much, which is part of their problems imho. Cameras and lenses people want that don't appear, and cameras and lenses appearing which few seem to have been asking for. When they have had problems with cameras, which they have had a number of over the last few years, they ignore the problems until sheer weight of numbers forces them to do something. Hardly endearing them to their customers. :rolleyes: Having so many problems hints at cost cutting on the design and/or quality control side, and using users as testers. Again, not treating users well.

The delay of these DL cameras for so long, with little information, and then to be cancelled seems a bit disrespectful to their users, and potential users. Other manufacturers may be doing similar things, but I'm a Nikon user and mainly concern myself with what happens with them.

I do see other manufacturers adding features through firmware updates, which kind of gives the impression that they 'care' about their customers. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top