And as expected...... is this the start of the end of Nikon? http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/20170213_1_e.pdf
The future doesn't look particularly rosy does it. I can't see (and hope to god it isn't) it being the beginning of the end for Nikon though.
Start of the end may be overstating things... but Nikon need to focus on what they do best, DSLRs - the problem is ILC market is shrinking mainly as a result of two factors (1) lower end people don't need ILC to get the quality of images they are wanting and (2) at the top end pros are not needing to replace every time a new model comes out because cameras are already good enough. I wonder if any of the R&D from the DL range could feed into improving the Nikon1 range?
A shame indeed, one of those was on my list too. Hopefully they will keep going and something to help them.
It's a shambles from Nikon, they've been on the ropes for a while now, I suppose they'll close a lot of their Companies and keep the core. Not sure if their action cameras are selling, if not they'll be next.
I think the two things Nikon really need to do is (a) get some software developers in... SmartBridge from what I read is rather lacking; either get in developers or open the API and let others develop and (b) they need to market better. In terms of DSLRs Nikons offerings should be outselling Canon but they aren't because they aren't marketing well. The action cameras again are pretty good hardware, but the software is a nightmare. All IMO of course and as a Nikon fan girl (though in the past Canon and Minolta purchases as well as Olympus).
I don't think it's marketing that's necessarily letting Nikon down, it's more to do with Canon having the lion's share of the market and people are too heavily invested to change.
I don't agree, they should be telling potential users where their cameras are better than the competition, but they don't, they have general marketing slogans. I read this yesterday which kind of highlights what I think. As for the DL cameras, what a shambles. Nikon seem to be making so many bad decisions it's like they have a death wish, and/or are run by incompetents. D5 and D500 aside, the SnapBridge farce, taking features off replacement cameras (no sensor cleaning, or external mic port on D3400), releasing KeyMission to try and take on Go-Pro who are losing money as an established company in the portable/action cam field and expecting success. Add to that all the quality control problems on various cameras over the last few years and their reputation seems to be going down the pan. I'm glad I have Nikon gear that fills my needs now, and that will hopefully last for many years.
I don't know, the new PF lenses should have been enough to sway a lot of people (don't think Canon have an equivalent?), I think their marketing team are missing a trick or two as there is no clear differentiation in a crowded market, they are giving no reason why Nikon are the 'best' choice even though their sensors offer a clear advantage over Canon and their flash system is much better IME. Clear differentiation is something that the m43 companies have realised and their sales are growing, most m43 users will be able to give you a list of solid reasons they shoot m43 (size, speed etc) whereas I don't really see that with Canon or Nikon yet even Pentax have some very good specific reasons to get Pentax over the others. Anyway, that announcement is pretty standard for any business undergoing restructure and should be a sign that the future is brighter as they are refocussing on core businesses and pursuing a new strategy which will hopefully work. The interesting bit is that they are going for profit rather than revenue which basically means cost cutting and price rises on the expensive kit and not bothering with things like compact cameras where there is little profit (and no revenue nowadays).
I didn't say marketing didn't have an impact, just I don't think poor marketing has as much influence as market share. Just my opinion of course. As far as having good gear to last, I have that too but my only concerns are that if Nikon do go down the swanny that gear is going to massively devalue. But I can't honestly see that happening, I think someone else would take Nikon on rather than it disappearing altogether.
That flies in the face of many decades of consumerism exemplars as marketing is everything and people believe in brands, sad as that may be.
It does but I think there's two different target audiences. You have your consumers where marketing is more important, and prosumers/enthusiasts and pros who are less likely (imo) to be influenced my marketing (Probably why I never see TV ads for DSLRs, only consumer compacts). It would be interesting to see the sales figures of newbie togs to see whether there's more who buy Nikon or Canon. But even then this is skewed as I speak to a lot of people who buy Canon as a family member or friend has Canon, and as Canon have a much larger share of the DSLR market this is more likely to happen than someone buying Nikon due to a family member or friend owning Nikon. Obviously these are just my own observations and musings, I haven't had the breakdown of sales figures Another thing to bear in mind is that Canon are a much bigger company as a whole and are not solely reliant on cameras. I know Nikon make other optics but how big this business is I don't know.
Most of Nikon's, and I assume Canon's, sales for DSLRs, are at the entry level. How much profit they make in comparison to cameras higher up their ranges, only the companies know, but minor iterations, and in some cases, replacing models whilst removing features doesn't seem to make sense to me. Because cameras are aimed at beginners doesn't mean they will all not do any research on what to buy, and if you don't snag users at the beginning, then you will have less people to keep and progress and upgrade. Don't offer people definite reasons to choose you over a competitor, and as has been pointed out, people will gravitate more to what their friends and family use, which for Pentax and Sony (when Sony also made DSLR's) were Canon and Nikon, and Canon over Nikon for numbers of users. Nikon have had a sensor advantage over Canon for a number of years for Dynamic Range, Resolution and high ISO performance, but you wouldn't know it from their marketing. Now Canon are closing the gap and adding fast on sensor AF to improve their Live View and Video performance, Nikon have squandered the lead they had in the sensor department imho. They only have themselves to blame for what happens to them if it all goes bad.
PF lenses? Plural? There's only one so far, isn't there? Canon do have an equivalent. They call it Diffractive Optics and they've had it for ages without making it mainstream. Their first DO lens, the 400mm f/4, came out as long ago as 2001... https://www.dpreview.com/articles/9510057728/canon-400do If Nikon have found a way to make PF/DO technology affordable and Canon haven't, that would potentially be significant. But I don't see any indication that that's the case.
They don't make enough dx primes. It's cynical and deliberate to make FX more attractive despite few people needing it and they are getting their just desserts.
Yep, for years they have neglected DX users, their bread and butter. In the meantime other companies have catered for them by offering a full suite of fast primes that people want.
Correct.... I had the Nikon D7000 and 17-55mm f2.8 DX setup, was great but there wasn't many other high-grade (pro) DX lenses available. Nikon will finish eventually just like Kodak
Well not Canon... they (afaics) have less primes. It's only companies like Fuji who are dedicated to "crop" sensors who have an extensive lineup of lenses dedicated to crop sensor cameras.
I'm at loss to understand this..... why would you need a Pro-grade DX lens when there will be a Pro FX lens which will fit any DX body! (Apart from cost, but you did say Pro) Surely buying FX lenses (which will work on DX bodies) would allow you to upgrade to an FX body should you so wish. (I've just been researching the Canon equivalent to this and taking a Crop lens [EFS] into a FF body [EF] is just not allowed and has been known to cause failure of the mirror - I need to go and clean my eyes after such a perversion)
Agreed, I don't understand the comments above. Canon, as far as I can see, only have 2 primes for EF-S (Including one macro) whereas Nikon has 4 DX Primes (including one macro). Neither are extensive in the slightest, but Nikon has double that of Canon.
Well maybe they should have plugged the gaps rather than spending money on entering saturated markets. It's not as if users haven't been asking for these lenses for years. DX users are their bread and butter, they need to stop assuming everyone want FX. As for Canon, I wouldn't worry about them, they do their own thing.
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
They have neglected their goals.. share holders and the staff who have been made redundant. Oh and their customers who were waiting for the DL!.......
