Nikon shutters China plant, lays off 2,285 employees, Blames Rise of Smartphones

[Kell]

I think the only ground-breaking camera I’ve seen of late is the Light L16.

No idea how it will actually perform in terms of actual pictures from genuine users as opposed to Light’s offering or in terms of sales.

I think last time I mentioned it, @Eloise said it will be even more niche that the DSLR market. And I think that’s true. It’s not cheap enough to compete at the low end of the market. And it might not be good enough to compete with £1600 worth of camera.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think the only ground-breaking camera I’ve seen of late is the Light L16.

No idea how it will actually perform in terms of actual pictures from genuine users as opposed to Light’s offering or in terms of sales.

I think last time I mentioned it, @Eloise said it will be even more niche that the DSLR market. And I think that’s true. It’s not cheap enough to compete at the low end of the market. And it might not be good enough to compete with £1600 worth of camera.

The principle behind the Light L16 is sound, and I think we'll see it developed in multi-lens smartphones where the inherently short depth suits the slim profile. By combining multiple images in software, you can effectively produce a much larger sensor with all the attendant benefits, like much better sharpness, shallow depth-of-field, good low light performance, zoom etc. There are lots of possibilities.

I don't think anything like 16 lenses are needed to see real benefits. The future of smartphone photography depends on software development as much as anything else.

 

[Nod]

Proper cameras will not disappear, not as long as there are buyers like us around. But we are a breed apart, heading towards a niche sector, and a bit geeky and unfashionable. We should also expect to pay more in future, as we did in the past when quality photo equipment was, relatively speaking, very expensive.

Bit of a snip and quoted only to add the word "back" between "heading" and "towards".

Interesting to see from Terry's graph that the rises in popularity seem to roughly coincide with steps forward in automation which made getting decent results easier than it had been before as well as highlighting how fast film camera production dropped after the introduction of relatively affordable digital kit.

 

[HoppyUK]

Bit of a snip and quoted only to add the word "back" between "heading" and "towards".

Interesting to see from Terry's graph that the rises in popularity seem to roughly coincide with steps forward in automation which made getting decent results easier than it had been before as well as highlighting how fast film camera production dropped after the introduction of relatively affordable digital kit.

Yes, we're heading 'back' but it won't be the same. Overlaying everything today is the internet.

I have an interesting graph (prolly in the loft somewhere) that tracked sales going back from the 1960s to pre-digital. Spending peaks always coincided with major innovation, like the Kodak Instamatic, the birth of Polaroid, affordable SLRs, Kodak Disc (small blip!), AF compacts, zoom-compacts, AF SLRs and so on. And because film sales could be separately identified, this was mirrored by big jumps in use. Many of us around these parts trace back to the affordable SLRs era of the 70s and 80s (Canon AE-1, Oly OM-10, Pentax ME Super etc) but we're relative specialists and a dying breed as part of the mainstream.

We are all gadget lovers at heart. Stanley Kalms (founder of Dixons) coined the phrase 'male jewelry' and marketed photography as cool and sexy, becoming the world's biggest retailer for many years. That still applies, just as much to women now, except that it's the latest iPhone which is cool and sexy and to the younger generation, DSLRs (and mirrorless, same difference) are just as alien to them as smartphones are to us for serious photography.

 

[Nod]

I had a Kodak Disc camera - from Dixons. First one didn't work so I took it back and got a replacement. 2nd one had the same fault so I returned that too. The replacement was checked while I was still in the shop so when that one didn't work either, I got a refund.
I started with a Pentax S-1 with a separate meter that clipped over the pentaprism. Lusted after a bayonet mount, especially after playing with an A-1 in (?) '80 or '81. After a longish layoff (discovered booze, bikes and wimmin!), came back in the late '90s with an all singing, all dancing AF Nikon (F65) since it fitted me best from the 3 or 4 options I had narrowed the choice down to.
Still suffer from GAS but have pretty much settled on the kit I now have so don't contribute to the sales figures much these days. Mind you, an X-T3's introduction might cause a purchase (but probably of another X-T2 unless the 3 is as much of an upgrade as the 2 is from the 1...)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I had a Kodak Disc camera - from Dixons. First one didn't work so I took it back and got a replacement. 2nd one had the same fault so I returned that too. The replacement was checked while I was still in the shop so when that one didn't work either, I got a refund.
I started with a Pentax S-1 with a separate meter that clipped over the pentaprism. Lusted after a bayonet mount, especially after playing with an A-1 in (?) '80 or '81. After a longish layoff (discovered booze, bikes and wimmin!), came back in the late '90s with an all singing, all dancing AF Nikon (F65) since it fitted me best from the 3 or 4 options I had narrowed the choice down to.
Still suffer from GAS but have pretty much settled on the kit I now have so don't contribute to the sales figures much these days. Mind you, an X-T3's introduction might cause a purchase (but probably of another X-T2 unless the 3 is as much of an upgrade as the 2 is from the 1...)

I still have a pentax S1A

 

[Nod]

Mine was borrowed from Dad (for a few years!) until I found a Spotty to replace it. Even then, I kept the S1 for another couple of years so I could have colour and B&W at the same time. All ended up getting traded in to help fund a Minolta DiMage 3 for Dad, along with an old (and pretty knackered!) Roleicord (IIRC) and some other bits and pieces.

 

[odd jim]

Almost everyone wants pictures.
very few identify as "Photographers"
The enthusiast market will continue to shrink.
A majority of people are no longer prepared to put up with the physical encumbrancer of photographic gear in to their social life.
They only see their images on digital devices.
Phone camera images are more than good enough for their social life.

The mass market has moved away from the tyranny of stand alone cameras.

Joe public see us "Photographers" as pretty weird.
we have move into the same bracket as stamp collectors and Train spotters.

Tyranny?

 

[odd jim]

I think as smartphones get better, the need for people to buy compact cameras falls. Smartphones might not be as good as a purpose made compact camera, but they're certainly good enough for most non photographers.

Agreed. But, higher end compacts such as the Sony RX100 are staggeringly good! My iphone 7 is significantly less capable than my mk1 RX100 from 2012 which just blows it out the water, a lot of people don't appreciate just how good the enthusiast compact cameras are.

 

[odd jim]

Now that you can get 'professional' effects with smartphones, there's no real need for most people to venture any further into camera ownership.

My friend took this with iPhone 7 Plus on 'portrait' mode which magically adds shallow DOF.

It has fake shallow DOF, a lack of sharpness and missed focus. Not too much appeal going there.

From a tiny, 2012 Sony RX 100 compact, nothing faked . I'd say a 5 year old £200 compact still has a huge advantage over new £1000 telephones, its just the millennials don't see this as important.
Parrot, Hong Kong Park by Jim, on Flickr

 

[Ed Sutton]

It has fake shallow DOF, a lack of sharpness and missed focus. Not too much appeal going there.

You clearly don't comprehend how the majority of people appreciate (as in look at and think about) photographs.

They mostly don't care about missed focus, or sharpness, or even notice these 'major defects'.

Get out of the photography forum world and find pictures that 'normal people' think are great. If the ones I see on fishing forums are anything to go by (and I reckon they are) they'll be badly framed, horribly exposed, and hardly ever sharp. But normal people love 'em.

Phone cameras are more than good enough for most people.

 

[odd jim]

You clearly don't comprehend how the majority of people appreciate (as in look at and think about) photographs.

They mostly don't care about missed focus, or sharpness, or even notice these 'major defects'.

Get out of the photography forum world and find pictures that 'normal people' think are great. If the ones I see on fishing forums are anything to go by (and I reckon they are) they'll be badly framed, horribly exposed, and hardly ever sharp. But normal people love 'em.

Phone cameras are more than good enough for most people.

Of course they are, in the same way 110 was back in the 70's.

But remember a huge portion of these people who find the images good enough are the people who only take pictures of badly parked cars for their local 'spotted' Facebook page and not a lot else.

While portable telephone photography has exploded, so are the users who would never have taken a photo before they got hold of their transportable radiograph.

 

[Ed Sutton]

But remember a huge portion of these people who find the images good enough are the people who only take pictures of badly parked cars for their local 'spotted' Facebook page and not a lot else.

In the fishing world these people who are happy with their phones are the very ones who used to use film SLRs, then compact digitals, because they were better than 110 film. Now they no longer want to pay even £200 for a camera. £50 is pushing it when the phone they already have does as good a job as they want. They no longer make prints. All their pictures are viewed on a screen. So they are right, in a way.

 

[odd jim]

In the fishing world these people who are happy with their phones are the very ones who used to use film SLRs, then compact digitals, because they were better than 110 film. Now they no longer want to pay even £200 for a camera. £50 is pushing it when the phone they already have does as good a job as they want. They no longer make prints. All their pictures are viewed on a screen. So they are right, in a way.

All that means is 'photography' has evolved into further, different strands irrespective of kit. A basic level as described, while at the other end you have people who hike for miles, camp under the northern lights for days and produce a nice print for the wall at the end.

The chances are the latter would invest in equipment.

 

[Ed Sutton]

All that means is 'photography' has evolved into further, different strands. A basic level as described, while at the other end you have people who hike for miles, camp under the northern lights for days and produce a nice print for the wall at the end.

I think it means that the middle ground is disappearing.

There were always the happy snappers and the enthusiasts at the extremes.

In the middle were people enthusiastic about a hobby other than photography who wanted 'decent' photos of it. Be that catching fish or train spotting. These are the people forgoing cameras and using their phones. Every serious angler I knew back in the eighties and nineties took an SLR fishing. These days most use a phone, some use 'old' digital compacts (Canon G6 etc) and very few use mirrorless or DSLR cameras. I don't often use a DSLR myself when fishing, my compacts produce results as good as my film cameras did.

 

[Riz_Guru]

Nikon announce they are closing all operations in Brazil by the end of 2017.
I think Nikon are in big trouble and their efforts might be too late, could we see the Japanese government step in?

 

[Riz_Guru]

It has fake shallow DOF, a lack of sharpness and missed focus. Not too much appeal going there.

From a tiny, 2012 Sony RX 100 compact, nothing faked . I'd say a 5 year old £200 compact still has a huge advantage over new £1000 telephones, its just the millennials don't see this as important.
Parrot, Hong Kong Park by Jim, on Flickr

I agree,
I own a Sony RX100 III and its an incredible little compact camera, way better than what a smartphone can produce.

 

[davholla]

You clearly don't comprehend how the majority of people appreciate (as in look at and think about) photographs.

They mostly don't care about missed focus, or sharpness, or even notice these 'major defects'.

Get out of the photography forum world and find pictures that 'normal people' think are great. If the ones I see on fishing forums are anything to go by (and I reckon they are) they'll be badly framed, horribly exposed, and hardly ever sharp. But normal people love 'em.

Phone cameras are more than good enough for most people.

Very true, it took me 2 years to persuade my wife that photos she takes on her phone of my son aren't that good. She still won't use anything other than phone though.

 

[Eloise]

Nikon announce they are closing all operations in Brazil by the end of 2017.
I think Nikon are in big trouble and their efforts might be too late, could we see the Japanese government step in?

"All" operations in Brazil being an eCommerce site which never sold anything because officially imported products are subject to high taxes in Brazil.

The reality is that no-one in Brazil every buys official imports, they all go to grey market stores.

 

[Kell]

I agree,
I own a Sony RX100 III and its an incredible little compact camera, way better than what a smartphone can produce.

I think what missed actually, is not the focus, but the point.

You're happy with the shot of the parrot (and I prefer it too), but you're missing what's important to 'most' people.

And that's unless it's commercial, the person taking the photo is (usually) the 'client', if they're happy, job done.

What's funny is that there are now more images produced than ever before, and yet they have less worth than at any other time. Back in the days of film cameras, photography was an investment hobby. Camera, lenses, film, processing and prints.

Now you can produce images of the same or better quality than most of the film compacts of the 70s and 80s as part of your phone contract. Most people don't need anything more.

 

[Nod]

I think Nikon are in big trouble and their efforts might be too late, could we see the Japanese government step in?

Like pretty much all the "camera" manufacturers, cameras are a small part of Nikon's product range, with other optical products being the ones that pay the wages.

 

[LCPete]

I agree,
I own a Sony RX100 III and its an incredible little compact camera, way better than what a smartphone can produce.

Exactly I bought my mk1 rx100 because I was disappointed with the shots from my mobile the little Sony produces excellent quality shots

 

[Ste_S]

I don't think anything like 16 lenses are needed to see real benefits. The future of smartphone photography depends on software development as much as anything else.

I'd say the future of all photography is in software (along with sensor) development. Nikon and Canon aren't particularly best placed to be market leaders in either of those fields, and I can easily see them being too scared to deviate from their current path and will double down on DSLR. They'll probably end up going the Leica route and producing smaller numbers of cameras for ever increasing prices.

One of the other problems with camera manufacturing is the second hand market. On anecdotal evidence I'd say camera ownership is increasing amongst the young (driven by social media and sharing) as I see more and more teenagers with cameras of all types now. They're not buying new due to cost, and technology not really moving on that much.
I had a teenager with a skateboard stop me last weekend, he wanted to chat about film photography (I was shooting with a Pentax ME Super, he had an Olympus OM2n)

 

[HoppyUK]

"All" operations in Brazil being an eCommerce site which never sold anything because officially imported products are subject to high taxes in Brazil.

The reality is that no-one in Brazil every buys official imports, they all go to grey market stores.

I think that's more like it - Nikon rationalising its position in a chaotic market and getting out and, interestingly, owning up to the fact that they can't beat the grey importers selling at 30% lower prices. Nikon will still sell just as many cameras in Brazil, but without the cost of an official support infrastructure.

Being cynical, the main purpose of all the wholly-owned subsidiary companies, ie Nikon UK and Canon UK etc, is to maintain prices and margins through official channels, while maximising profit and capital held in Japan - and it's not easy

 

[HoppyUK]

Like pretty much all the "camera" manufacturers, cameras are a small part of Nikon's product range, with other optical products being the ones that pay the wages.

Nikon is primarily a camera and lens business, the lion's share. Nikon has other smaller interests, but they're not pulling up any trees either. Unlike many of its rivals that have major businesses in other areas.

Nikon simply needs to sell more/expensive cameras, but so do most of it's rivals to a greater or lesser extent. That's unlikely, given the current shift in consumer spending towards smartphones, and nobody knows where that will stop (not any time soon).