< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon to release new entry level DSLR camera, “revised” compact cameras

Pin It

Nikon-to-concentrate-on-entry-level-products

I guess at that point this is not even a rumor anymore since Nikon mentioned it in their official financial results presentation - the company will release a new entry level DSLR that will most likely be positioned under the D30xx line (probably it will be called D10xx). Expect the announcement before the end of the year (could even be in the next few weeks, since we are entering "announcements time").  This should not be a big surprise because few months ago Canon announced the world's smallest DSLR camera - the EOS Rebel SL1:

Canon-EOS-Rebel-SL1-camera-size-comparison

Canon EOS Rebel SL1 camera size comparison

The interesting part is how Nikon will price this new camera - the SL1 body costs $649, the latest D3200 kit is currently priced at $546.95, while D3100 kit currently sells for $446.95 and a refurbished D3100 kit goes for $349. How good or cheap must the new camera be in order to make a difference?

I do not like the new strategy of "accelerate shifting newer products in the entry class of DSLR". Note that Nikon is not complaining about slow D4 or D800 sales - so why not concentrate on that segment of the market instead? Yes, it is a smaller target audience, but Leica for example, is able to make a living by selling expensive high-end equipment to a small group of enthusiasts. Why not concentrate on serious amateurs and pros that will actually buy Nikon products?

Now the more interesting/mysterious part: in addition to reconsidering the Nikon 1 product planing, Nikon also mentioned a "revised development plan for new compact DSC (digital still camera)". I don't think they are talking about new simple point and shoot Coolpix cameras, because we already know that they are a dying breed. In the past few weeks I started receiving information about a new camera, but I am still not sure what exactly it is going to be - some tips point to a new mirrorless APS-C based camera, other even suggest a simplified retro-styled full frame camera without video and other high tech gimmicks (yes, why don't we try this Nikon?). If anyone has more information on that new camera, please contact me.

Like I mentioned before, I also expect a new D4 type camera (D4x?) before the end of the year or in early 2014 that could even have a 45MP sensor inside. Basically we should see three major camera announcements in the next few months in addition to any new Nikon 1 and Coolpix products. Sorry, nothing on the D400 for now (no surprise again since there seems to be a "zero chance of a 7D Mark II in 2013").

This entry was posted in Nikon D2300, Nikon D4s, Nikon Df and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Fgonz

    NR: No video, at this time? the video is a trademark, especially nowadays that in Japan it is promoting and developing the 4k and 8k format.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I don’t know – those are just rumors without much credibility at that point.

    • ronadair

      Let’s be honest: 4k and 8k are a scam perpetrated on an ignorant consumeristic society.

      • Fgonz

        You are a communist?

        • ronadair

          Wow…so truthful commentary makes one a communist now?

          Please, for purely entertainment purposes, do go on.

      • delayedflight

        After I had a look at a demo 4k TV in-store admittedly it looks amazing and the detail is mindblowing.
        But then you think how the hell are you going to fit it into your house plus the obscene cost of actually getting one…

        • Thom Hogan

          Cost won’t be an issue. Same price curve has happened over and over again with TV technologies. Early adapters pay through the nose, then it gets “affordable,” then it goes mainstream.

          The real issue has been and remains content delivery.

      • patto01

        “scam – noun informal – a dishonest scheme; a fraud.”
        People may not need a 4k or 8k television but if manufacturers make them, and content becomes available, it won’t meet the definition of “scam.” I agree, however, that your description of society applies to a large segment thereof. Of course, it would be (and has been) easy for people to describe my preoccupation with photography as obsessive; and some individuals on this blog have nothing but derision for anyone elses desire to acquire new lenses, etc. They, obviously, only have pure motives.

        • outkasted

          4k is probably awesome but unless they will be broadcasting the signal to match I’m not worrying to much. Broadband/DSL is still crazy slow at less than 10mb per sec.

          • Thom Hogan

            Well, this is the classic chicken and egg story. Which comes first?

            I’ll predict that we’ll have 4K video served within 10 years. The problem is going to be that the broadcasters won’t want this, mainly because they won’t be able to do it due to the airspace needed and regulation needed to standardize, and thus it will be disruptive them. In other words, it will be an Apple (or whoever is the leading edge consolidator/innovator at the time) TV that relies on broadband. I suspect that this is what Google is really up to with the Kansas City fiber experiment. They’re trying to figure out how to make YouTube the next CBS.

  • Charles

    If Nikon is following this path I would better change on time of boat. I’m one of those serious amateurs and posibly a future pro. I don’t wanna find myself full of unsupported expensive gear in the futures years. Nikon is pointing to the mass market that is already conquered by smartphones. They should try to focus in what they are better, photography market. Better and real mirrorles, better dslrs, better worldwide stratetegy (that means not just Nikon, but also all regional intermediaries that are causing serious damage to the brand) If they want not just make keep making money, but survive. Nikon, breaking news: point and shoot market is already gone forever.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Exactly my point, a soccer mom that will buy the new D1000 could care less if she buys Nikon, Canon, Sony or whatever. On the high end, there is currently only Nikon and Canon with Sony gaining momentum (not considering Pentax because they do not have a full frame camera yet). Nikon should try to dominate that market instead of concentrating on the entry level consumer.

      • Maji

        I was wondering if the profit margin and the sales volume of the entry level dSLRs were that high that Nikon decided to push more into that market. Perhaps it will be a dSLR with a built in phone? :)

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          Could be. I think the D800 was underpriced when announced. Think of what you were getting for $3k. I think the camera would still sell well if it costed $4k.

          • Jeff

            Was the sales volume of the D4 and D800 cameras less than Nikon expected? And if so, why would they develop a D4X that will probably sell in the $8000 range the D3X sold in?
            I’ve owned a D800 since May 1st of 2012. So far so good, it’s been glitch free, fingers crossed!

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              I don’t know. I just think that they cold have made more money from the D800.

            • Jeff

              By the time I added the Nikon battery grip for my D800, paid the sales tax, bought a third battery and a 128GB SD card and 32GB CF card including an extra 128GB SD card it was a $4,000 camera body! I may have held out for the D600 if the D800 had not been such a bargain; that is compared to the D4.

            • bossa

              In OZ I paid $3850 & $3750 for my two D800E’s and then $450 & 400 for the grips not counting the cards an

              extra batteries.

              We pay 10% goods and services tax here and also get screwed over for extra because it’s a protected market.

              I can’t buy a USA version of Nikon cameras from Adorama or B&H, only grey market as Nikon prevents it. So

              Nikon milks a little more money and only offers 1 year standard warranty. Some items were recently offered a 1

              year extension although my TC-14E II was not accepted for the extra.

              All up my two D800E’s with grips, batteries and cards were AU$4,500 and AU$4,350 and that was when the

              Australian Dollar was buying US$1.10.

            • bossa

              The last time I’ll use a text editor LOL

            • Sahaja

              Nikon seems fairly obsessed with regaining No1 spot from Canon and probably wanted to try and grab the biggest market share in full frame DSLRs

              They probably kept the price of D800 below the 5DMkIII to try and gain that market because it should result in future lens sales and upgrades.

              Unfortunately there was lack of availability of the D800 to meet the initial demand, then all the fuss over the left “left AF issue”, followed by the “oil/dust issue” on the D600 and horror stories about poor QC and dealing with Nikon repairs. This probably held many people back – or made them decide to stick with Canon.

              In the midst of a big recession and economic uncertainty, $2,000 or $3,000 is also a lot for most enthusiasts to spend on a camera body – let alone the cost of new FX lenses – especially if you want equivalent reach at the long end.

              Perhaps many people have also begun to realise the APS-C cameras they already have are capable of producing extreemly good pictures – and they have no real need to continually upgrade.

            • Thom Hogan

              I’m sure someone at Nikon sat at a desk and calculated that both before (using assumptions) and after (using facts and some additional assumptions). I’m not a big fan of that approach. Having a highly popular product you have a tough time keeping in stock is perfectly fine by me in terms of product management, as long as it is hitting all its goal numbers.

              And that’s one of the issues with the D800, I think. I’ll bet that it didn’t hit its returns and repairs numbers. Typically we seek 5% max problems in a product like that. We know from clear, multiple data sources that at least the first four months were plagued with higher than 20% problem cameras.

              Imagine the complaints if the D800 had been 33% more expensive ;~).

            • Thom Hogan

              Initially, the sales volume of the D800 was higher than Nikon expected, by a considerable margin. But now, it’s lower than expected.

              I think the D4 has always been lower than anticipated. Remember, one of the key purchasers of the top DSLR is photojournalists (and mostly through bulk purchases at agencies and newspapers). That camera is on a long time cycle, and what happened during the transition from D3 to D4 is that the target customer had a big decline.

          • M!

            the price point of D800 was a consideration more of the price of a 5D3 rather than what it really should sell for. Nikon makes more money selling lenses than bodies, very much like a cheap game console to get you into the system. the mirrorless system was a flop because users don’t buy as many lenses as a typical DSLR owner.

          • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

            Except for sensor, it’s mechanically very similar to a D700/D3/D3x, which after being built for so long, must have a pretty tight/efficient production line. The AF sensor is seven years old. The image sensor is only a tweaked Sony design and the processing guts are shared with the D4. There’s actually not a lot going on there to merit a big difference in price between that and a D600. Mag alloy body maybe? I suspect that if it weren’t for the quake/tsunami/floods, there’d be a good margin on the D800. There’s certainly a ridiculous margin on the batteries and grip! (my D700 grip was HALF the price of the D800 grip–suppa that?!)

          • fjfjjj

            Nikon could have charged $4k for the D800 if they had a D710 available at $3k.

            • fred

              …and charge 2k for the D400!

      • lanatheme

        I think entry level is to be consider as belonging to the past and to be left for cell phone camera. I don’t like this but people don’t have the money to buy a 700 $ “purse” camera and a 600$ phone and a 2 grand camera. When you think about it, most people don’t even need a camera. This market will get hyper competitive as the technology for small and efficient sensor improve. If I was on the Nikon board of directors, I would push them to concentrate on consolidating their market share of the middle to high-end camera market. It would cost some sale for a few years but would probably paid out lather on. They other option would be to associate with a phone maker but you risk to loose some of your brand name value.

        But still, once again, investor wants short therm growth and that push company to target the flavour of the week…. maybe will see a 1000$ nikon go-pro shortly.

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          I agree, not sure why they are pushing for entry level DSLRs. Like you said: most people have smart phones that are getting better and better and if they want something more serious, they usually look into a high end DX or FX camera.

          • SimenO1

            Pushing entry level DSLRs hooks customers to the brand and F-mount. A loss in the short run but win in the longer run. Im shure they can cut more corners to press short term costs down.

          • Thom Hogan

            Simple answer: volume and profit.

            A few of us analysts have grouped our data together to try to unlock the puzzle. As I just reported, about 60% of all the revenue Nikon the company took in last quarter was due to DSLRs and lenses for DSLRs. Nikon 1 contributed another few percent.

            The entry level models are Canon’s and Nikon’s bread and butter. Both need to sell multi-millions of those.

            Even if you just look at the CIPA numbers you can start to see it: the total value of compacts sold so far this year is 226b yen; the total value of DSLRs sold so far this year is 251b yen. Mirrorless and DSLRs together are 293b yen.

            Follow the money.

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              The question remain: what can a new entry level DSLR line bring that the D3200/D5200 or D3100/D5100 doesn’t have? New features, lower price or a smaller size? How big of a difference on the bottom line will a new entry level DSLR make? In my opinion Nikon has covered the entry level DSLR pretty well.

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, Nikon didn’t exactly say “a new entry-level DSLR.” I’m still trying to get a full grip on the Japanese statement, which seems much more nuanced.

              The issues for Nikon with the D3200/D5200 is three-fold: (1) Canon is making a smaller camera now, so size matters; (2) Sony is going mirrorless with their competing model, so cost of production matters; and (3) Does Nikon really have the right mix of features for the market? (e.g. right now WiFi is an add-on, and it requires lousy software to make it even partly effective). Certainly plenty of room for a better camera.

            • Kevin Purcell

              Thom, I think, is on the money with this.

              What you’ll see is not a D1000 at a lower price point but a D3xxx DSLR product engineered alongs the lines of a Nikon 1 V1: no mirror in mirror box; EVF not OVF; PDAF on sensor. The parts count, the number of calibration adjustments (like off sensor PDAF) drops and so the manufacturing cost will drop.

              This is what Sony are doing. And clearly what Canon are going to do with Dual Pixel PDAF when they get those sensors into production.

              The way forward is reduction of manufacturing costs through simplification and designing platforms not single cameras. The platform could be adapted to a F mount DSLR-alike camera or a CX mount mirrorless or a high market compact. The latter might be difficult as there are two design camps in Nikon for Coolpix and DSLR (+ Nikon 1).

              Simpler hardware and shared software means more GPM for the product that people still want to buy (the entry level DSLR) and potential new products (like a mirrorless APS-C in the a Nikon 1 box … it’ll fit).

              It may even have more features like live histogram that’s failed to make it into the Nikon 1 (which sometimes feels like a small DSLR rather than a mirrorless or compact).

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              I think what you are describing is the other “mystery” product. Their statement clearly says “entry class of DSLR”. If you remove the mirror and do all other changes, you no longer have a DSLR.

            • Kevin Purcell

              We just have a problem of nomenclature: what do you call a DSLR that uses DSLR (F mount) len mount that doesn’t have a mirror in “the mirror box” but does have the gap for a mirror box. And you give it a D3xxx product name.

              The camera I describe looks like a DSLR: uses DSLR lenses (F mount), will have an EVF probably in a hump in the middle of the camera, on sensor PDAF (a requirement to use the current F mount lenses).

              It’s just a cheaper way to make a camera that the DSLR buying public wants to buy. They don’t care if it doesn’t have a mirror.

              I suspect Nikon take the same view in the photography business. If it sells DSLR lenses it’s a “DSLR”.

              What do Nikon call a DSC (Digital Still Camera) that can take videos? A DSC. Same idea. Out of date phrase of a product that’s moved beyond it’s original acronym.

              The Nikon 1 was designed as a parts reduced camera (a couple of hundred parts rather than more than 1000 in a typical DSLR). They’ll do the same for the “entry level DSLR” because that’s the only way to reduce costs.

              So try not to get wrapped up in the words and think about the market and the business case for it. I know, this is a rumors site not an MBA course but if you can’t think like the company you won’t see where they’re going.

              Nothing here is new: Thom has been talking about the same ideas for a while now.

            • Thom Hogan

              Just to be clear, I don’t believe there should be a D1000. A D3300 with no mirror, on-sensor PD, a good EVF, built-in WiFi, and a host of other more modern choices, yes. A stripped down D3200 to get to a lower price point, no.

            • Kevin Purcell

              Agreed. I don’t think there is room for a D1000 as a coventional DSLR.

              Nikon might give it a new product number though to sell the EVF over the OVF (the biggest change visible to a customer).

            • catfishb52

              If Nikon were to find the right entry level camera for those Soccer Moms then that brings a lot of follow on business — Mom all of a sudden takes an interest in photography now wants a DSLR or junior wants one for birthday or Christmas, if they have a good experience with the entry level they will tend to stay Nikon, but it need to be intuitive not something that she needs to pull out the operators manual for. They should concentrate more on scene modes rather than the PSAM settings. Don’t make it for the entire world. European and North American tastes are pretty similar, the Asian point of view isn’t anything like ours what excites them in a product doesn’t get a second look from us. Take what Mr. Okamoto said about soft Nikon 1 sales, they don’t understand why Europe and America aren’t buying them “it’s so popular with Japanese woman.” Until Nikon starts relying on its foreign marketing divisions for some input as to what the market wants it’s always going to struggle. It’s okay to make a camera meant only for a particular region of the world, people and cultures are different — Hey Nikon you really need to get out and visit your customers, go to photography club meetings, have design teams go out with Thom Hogan, Scott Kelby, and other visible Nikon users to see what the skinny is. I’m sure that Nikon’s future would be a whole brighter with just a little more ‘open ears, open doors, open hearts, and open minds’

            • Photo-Jack

              I don’t doubt the statistics you quoted. However they shows a picture of the past. I think we agree, that phone cameras will bite increasingly into the low end camera market. The typical customers probaly prefer ease of handling over IQ. And for most of their purposes the result with an actual cell are sufficient. I doubt that these people hang on to any particular brand. And if talking about low end DSLRs all that Nikon can expect is them buying a kit lens.
              According to your numbers compact (still) make 43% of the total (what is it turn over or win?) However the trendline clearly points down. Furthermore products designed for the fast changing and not IQ-aware customers are a contradiction to the brands core. No matter how many people think the bells for the termination of a pro level DX have rung, in my opinion a well designed D400 would still allow for more margin than a model below the D3XXX!
              Looking at the future beyond a quarterly statement, it would be worthwhile for Nikon to focus more on the upper medium and high end products. They have a proven trackrecord. However, even this pathway won’t come without difficulties. After launching the world’s best sensor in the D800, who would have thought, that the newer sensor of the D7100 without AA filter is (little) worse, than the one of the D5200 with AA filter.
              Reviewing NR looking at the numerous lenses readers would want (and a good share probaly also would really buy) there is another potential.
              But at the same time we can observe increasing complaints about Nikon teaching their serious customers, that they got to line up behind the Coolpix and Nikon 1 field. This is pokering at high stakes especially as some 3. party makers as Sigma come up with high quality products. Sloppy made details as the tripod collar on the expensive AF-S 80-400 speaks for themselves. The thing with these customers is, once they really turn around it takes a lot to get them back.
              Hopefully Nikon draws the right conclusions from this economic drawback!

            • Thom Hogan

              No. According to the numbers Coolpix sales value is about 20% compared to Nikon 1/DSLR’s 80%. For Canon, the ratio is 84%, 16%. I’m not sure where you got 43% from. That’s why we’re writing about this. The trend line has been down for a long time, but now the position is very, very clear and getting clearer. Peak digital camera sales was in 2011. In two years (end of 2013), we’re going to have a drop by half. This rapid decline, like the rapid ramp up, is going to separate out winners from losers very quickly.

            • Photdog

              Sorry my 43% should read 52% actually deriving from your numbers: 226b compact + 42b mirrorless + 251b DSLRs = a total of 519b thus 268b are 52%.
              Everything below DSLRs in Nikon’s program up to now is consumer anyway. I personally count the D4 and the D800 as pro. I’m a bit insecure about the D7100. On one hand it is well equipped and in my oppinion the best APS-C DSLR one can get at the time. On the other hand some features are omitted that used to be assigned to the pro line.I don’t think that Nikon benefits in the end by fooling around with the customers about the D400. With the right timing Nikon could have sold numbers of a D400 going in the realm of the D800 coming out.
              As customers arbitrarily left in uncertainty if a D400 will ever come, some went for the D7100 of which probably only few will add a D400 if it then comes.
              Had the 24MP FX been designed as an update of the D700, I had considered it, but instead it was layed out as an entry level FX. Not interesting for someone having a D800. Thus at least everything below the D7100 in the entire Nikon program is consumer level. And in the ratio high level lenses to consumer lenses, we can observe the dominance of consumerlevel too.

              Of course a Fuji X line could not make up for the 226b for Nikons compacts. But from many talks I know, that the XE-1 and the X Pro 1 are still an insider tip to many potential customers as they wouldn’t expect Fuji to do stuff in this IQ level. Even major European online dealers took months to list the Fuji X serie while the Nikon 1 was listed immidiately. Nikon still does have a good name in the market but it is not sufficient for making a serious camera of a toy because it carries the name. In the opposite, because of all that consumer stuff the brand name does not represent professional camera gear automatically any longer.
              All these statistics may be good for the stock analyseis and the requirements deriving from them may be good for maintaining quarterly win on a bearable level. But I don’t think they are good for the core of the brand and the company in the long run!
              However, we know, that Nikons compacts and mirrorless decline raising the question: What now? And in this concern, I don’t see Nikon’s strategy to put 80% of their efforts in consumer cameras/lenses in the long run!

          • JonB

            As a sports shooter, I talk to a lot of parents who bought an entry-level DSLR and a 55-200 or 70-300 specifically to take photos of their kids’ sports. Cellphone cameras aren’t good enough for that and aren’t likely to be any time soon. (And produce horrible red-eye with flash.) Cameras without phase-detect AF don’t focus quickly enough. They are left to buy DSLRs, and entry-level bodies are good enough for them. They aren’t into photography as a hobby, so they aren’t interested in high-end equipment. Perhaps mirrorless with integrated PD AF on the sensor will be able to eat into that market, but it hasn’t happened yet. If Nikon (or anyone else) can produce a yet-lower-priced entry body that serves that market, it’s a winner.

            • Thom Hogan

              Exactly. The Nikon 1 might have been the answer except for the fact that the small sensor restricts it for night games for kids sports, thus it wasn’t the answer. But I would certainly not be hesitant to recommend it to a parent of a child who plays daytime soccer.

          • Michael

            I don’t know, Entry level DSLRs are good for a lot of things. They help teach those photography. I highly doubt phone manufactures will add APSC sensors to their products ever, or manual control.

            Because Phones, and DSLRs are two completely different markets. Yes they are improving the cameras in phones, but i doubt they will take out the entry level market.

    • lefantome

      Quite agree. The same situation with you, Nikon is letting me down time after time.

    • Espen4u

      There are two things that can’t be put in a phone, good glass and a sensor that does’nt suck.Nikon should focus their efforts on coolpixies where a phone cannot go, high power zooms and lowlight performance. Nikon should also release/sell software (ie apps) that can emulate filters/effects (like instagram) and open up their OS’es for third party development, on the cheap dslrs and coolpixies that is.

      • fjfjjj

        Phones are about to start getting larger sensors. The thought of Nikon becoming a software/platform company is revolting. Have you used Capture NX?

  • ronadair
    • IslandNature

      I totally agree – that’s why I bought a Fuji X100s as a walk around camera to complement my D600 instead of a Nikon 1 J1, J2, J3, S1, V1, or V2. Sure it was more expensive, but it handles really well, excellent build quality, and I love the APS-C sensor/image quality. And the retro styling rocks.

    • A. Lurker

      Ha ha. Half of the “retro” styling people love about that box is there by necessity because it uses film. Take it away and you have a Chevy Leica that won’t use Leica glass. Nikon and the rest are running into a product wall where the high end boxes are too expensive/bulky to sell in the volumes further R&D requires and everything else, which is being destroyed by camera phones (phone cameras?). I have no idea where they need to turn to next and I bet they don’t either.
      Leicas look the way they do not because they’re “retro” but because that’s the way they’ve always looked; for them the look is gen-u-ine and if Nikon chases that “look” they stop looking like an industry leader. That would be very bad for the brand. Their brand is why their share of a shrinking market is increasing. Money’s tight.
      This is not just people moving to phones; this is a sea change for the industry and it’s going to be something else to watch.

      • fjfjjj

        There can be nothing less than genuine about a metal top-plate with shutter speed and exposure compensation dials and a threaded shutter release. Chasing that “look” is silly, but executing it properly is merely bowing to the original and most successful camera control design. I hope Nikon does it.

      • sperdynamite

        No, it doesn’t use Leica glass. It uses Fuji or now Zeiss glass. Which, if you’re not talking out of your own asshole, is tried and true, and some of the best lenses in the world. Hasselblad owners, cinematographers, and large format photographers will tell you that they really leave nothing to be desired. What you call ‘retro’ I call good design. It just makes sense in the same the way that design has made sense for years. It’s successful because not only do people like that design, the image quality is essentially unassailable. Only people who wax poetic about their Leica’s would complain about it, and we already know they can’t see past their own noses.

        • A. Lurker

          I’m not waxing poetic about my Leica doofus. The box above, which was an amalgamation of Leica and Contax features was abandoned by Nikon for the SLR form factor that they saw as the future. The F copied those features and added the prism, copied from a Dresden company, perhaps Ihagee. That SLR form is now under attack and Nikon has been too cautious to respond to the change coming this time. Leica has nothing to do with it; iPhone does, so quit your hating.

          What you see above *is* good design no matter from where Nikon copied it. You might want to ask them why they abandoned it because abandon it they did, except for their little SP foray in the early 2000s. That, too, was half-hearted. They could have sold a million of them and not threatened their digital volumes one bit. To return to it will be to go for the retro trend everyone likes to blab about right now. This is true no matter how you might like to re-define words.

          I hope Nikon flushes their board and pulls out of this one soon but they’ve become a fairly timid company these days. I bought my first three Fs in 1972 (that’s probably one of those years before you were born), and a couple F3s in ’83. Back then they used to do some outrageous lenses, stupid low volumes, just to demo their chops. Nobody could touch them. Then they became complacent and Canon stole a third of their business. The bean counters need to be kicked out to the curb.

          By the way, in all this I never even once disparaged Fuji or Zeiss lenses: Please try and stay on topic.

          And finally, “talking out of your own asshole”? Filthy mouth…

  • Mike

    I am under the assumption that Nikon D400 will be delayed, do to Nikon economic forecast?

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I believe so (assuming the D400 exists).

    • PhilG.

      I had the same impression when I read the 7d mkII was pushed somewhere mid 2014+.

      And now this news. Like the admin said, it look like it.

    • Matthew Fleisher

      Yes, postponed indefinitely…

    • Pat Mann

      A D400, IF it brings with it DX fast wide prime lenses and a 50-135 or so f/2.8 zoom to finally make DX a complete system, would certainly boost the forecast IMO. One body and at least two lenses would go to me. for about the price of a D4. If there’s no D400, or the D400 doesn’t bring the lenses, or there’s no Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera to consider by 1Q14, that same $ will probably go to Fuji, if the 23 f/1.4 shines. At least Fujifilm is thinking of APS-C as a complete camera SYSTEM for serious photographers with a full complement of basic lenses. Can’t do birds with Fuji? That’s what the old Nikon D300s in the closet will be for.

      • outkasted

        I got tired of waiting for D400, thus I put my D300 in for new shutter replacement and refurb rubber grips etc. I was waiting but after getting my D700 refurbed and putting my new Sigma 35mm/1.4 on it i’m am satisfied for the next few years to come. Say what you will but the Original Nikon D3/D700 12.1MP sensor really still rocks and kicks ass especially with some of the newer lenses. I guess is I did a lot of print work I believe that my desire for a D800 or D4 will be warranted but I doesn’t. As an event and concert photographer that mostly posts on Facebook I only desire a bit of video but its usually a fleeting desire that comes and goes. As a matter of fact I sent my D300 along with a 28-70mm/2.8 and 80-200mm/2.8 to be refurbed. Once I received them back I shall send out my Nikon F5 for refurb. I so tired of waiting and hoping for next best thing. I shall use what I have to create images.

      • fred

        She ain’t in the closet, shes in my camera bag.

  • jefferylewis

    I want an AF pancake lens for my D600. Please!

    • Charles

      Nikon should listen faitful customers. But they don’t, shamely.

      • Libby Stack

        I’ve been asking for a Leica M body clone with F mount for lenses for years. Falls on deaf ears.

        • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

          Look ta the Olympus OM-D: http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-sale.jpg
          It does look like a Nikon FM2 camera. How difficult will be for Nikon to stick an APS-C sensor inside and add F-mount? Keep the retro design, maybe add a new series of lenses and let’s see what will happen. Currently anything with retro design sells. I bet Nikon will release something similar once this trend is over.

          • Kyle Farris

            Haha, yep. Always late to the game.

            • chris

              Yeah! Digital SP3 with compatibility of Nikkor S lens !

          • Yhann Quintano

            Or just copy the Nikon s3 or sp range finders its a 35mm film RF so it actually counts as full frame.

          • Spy Black

            If Nikon doesn’t make that camera mirrorless, they will be accused, and rightly so, of making a “me too” camera a la new Canon. If they make it a mirrorless APS-C DSLR-ish design, then they may have a winner on their lines.

            If they do make a Canon clone, I can’t help but feel Nikon is deliberately sabotaging their own business, for reason I couldn’t fathom.

            It’s a shame to see the once most leading an innovating camera company in the world stoop to such lows.

            • twoomy

              Everything they do will be a “me too” design. A mirrorless APS-C is called the Sony NEX system. :)

              But if they make a very small dSLR and keep the F-mount and the mirror, they can offer decades of lenses–the one thing that’s missing from NEX. I would have jumped on the Sony NEX-7 a long time ago if the system didn’t have crap lenses.

            • Spy Black

              I said a mirrorless APS-C DSLR-ish design, the NEX is not that. Even though it’s a 4/3s design, the Olympus OM-D is more in line with what I’m referring to.

          • sperdynamite

            It’s not JUST about retro though. Fuji has successfully made something ‘retro’ with outstanding design, and it continues to improve. Photographers know that the X100S allows the camera to get out of the photographers way, the Nikon 1 system doesn’t do that. At all. And as capable as it is, I don’t think there is a market for it, or at least the market they thought there was. If Nikon wanted to compete they could have been 1st to the market with a fixed lens P7xx with a 1″ sensor, which is really where those sensors are destined to be. Instead they put out shite coolpix cameras for years after consumers were wise to the idea that bigger sensor means better. And the coolpix models couldn’t even compete with Canon, Sony or Panasonic in nearly any way. Then with their consumer DSLRs instead of sticking with one proven sensor like Canon did, they needlessly upgraded, while allowing the slower AF, mediocre video, and lens line up to remain lacking as compared to the competitors. Holding a D5200 in your hand, it still doesn’t feel as good to a consumer as a T3/4/5/i. Their consumer products as a whole are unappealing, or low on quality, as compared to competitors. You really have to buy a D7k model or better to get out of Nikon what everyone says of Nikon. And even then, too few middle level primes for DX, too few fixed aperture zooms. It’s like Nikon is obsessed with the numbers “3.5-5.6.” They refuse to push things forward, and by doing so, they’re being pushed aside, at least in the consumer market (which is a huge profit center so ya know, NBD).

            • Thom Hogan

              I agree. Fujifilm has made a good niche camera. It just happens to have a retro feel to it, and that resonates with the type of user Fujifilm is after, which is typically older and has film rangefinder or SLR experience.

              My objection was to equating “retro” with “it sells.” There are an awful lot of old camera designs that sucked that could be resurrected and called “retro,” and wouldn’t sell in the market.

              “Retro” generally is code word for “the old style controls weren’t broken, so don’t keep changing to something new.” Technically, a D800 is a retro as they get: it still uses the same basic control design as an N8008.

            • sperdynamite

              I would have to disagree with you about Fuji’s target market. People of all ages are interested in that camera. They usually first ask if it’s a Leica, then when finding out it’s a Fuji they are impressed with it’s style and hybrid VF. I’m in camera sales and everyone I show it to finds it interesting. Not everyone can afford it, but they do express interest. I still think retro is an over simplification. Like the D800 you mention, it’s just good design. It’s retro of course because it’s an old design, but it’s not kitch at all. Not like a Crosby turntable, more like a Technics with direct drive. I think the original Olympus Pen E-P1 was ‘retro’ and I had a hard time selling that camera. You pick it up and it just didn’t feel like an approachable tool. Aside from the OMD, I think Olympus still has that problem. Too many functions getting in the way of the ones that matter.

          • Thom Hogan

            “Currently anything with retro design sells.” Sorry, but the actual statistics say no. Retro has “buzz,” which is a different thing. Buzz may be important to selling, but it isn’t all there is to selling.

          • Xavi

            That’s why im just bought a beauty like this one:

          • 1j2

            Nice idea, but why APS-C? Compared to old FM2 even the D600 looks like a brick. With a new mount a mirrorless FM2 could be a great, compact FX camera and an F-mount-adapter would give us more lenses than any other mirrorless systems has.

        • J. Dennis Thomas

          It would be physically impossible to do an F mount on a Leica clone. F mounts are designed for SLRs which have more clearance. Not to mention no rangefinder coupling.

          They’d have to have to use the Nikkor S mount RF lenses. Then you could add an F adapter, but you’d still lose RF coupling.

          A Nikon S3-digital would be pretty sweet. IF they could come in under $8000 for the body…

          • sperdynamite

            It wouldn’t be a rangefinder. It would be an X-Pro1 clone. And it would only work if they so clearly improved over Fuji’s designs. It would have to be a new mount, with an AF enabled F mount adapter. Would probably sell well actually, but Nikon has no balls, so they won’t do it. They’re like Apple in the 1990s. So much potential left by the wayside.

          • Libby Stack

            When I said Leica body clone, I meant the body shape, just to clarify. I wasn’t talking about rangefinder coupling.

      • vitamin_s

        Only Canon does that… Sorry

    • Sahaja

      I want pankakes for breakfast not on my DSLR

  • porsupah

    Interesting, but – still nothing actually new. Given this was officially authorised, that says the top management seem to have nothing new. Not very surprising, as Nikon is a legendarily conservative company. Not very reassuring, either, given Nikon appears comfortable with letting Sigma address unanswered markets in their place, eg 30mm f/1.4, 18-35mm f/1.8.

    • Joseph Li

      Go Sigma! get me 55mm f/1.2 and 24-70 f/2 OS

    • outkasted

      and that 35mm/1.4 OMG!

  • onlyme

    Whoever puts a 1 inch sensor into a “compact” camera with a good viewfinder and good manual controls will make a lot of money. Sony are half way there with their RX100, as are Fuji with their X20.

    • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

      The mkii RX100 has an optional add on EVF. That’s a move in the right direction. Panasonic has a pretty small P&S with an EVF. It’s a cheap one, but it shows that it can be done. I don’t see why a 1″ sensor wouldn’t fit alongside an EVF.

    • Pat Mann

      You can put an APS-C sensor into a package not much larger – the minimum sized usable package with direct controls is defined by the hands that have to operate the equipment, not what’s in the box. The Coolpix A is actually a good model for the minimal box; it just needs a finder and a bit more direct control – another 12mm on the end for the eyecup and the buttons, and a bigger battery under a grip. And the APS-C sensor will forever have more than a full stop of light collection advantage over 1-inch, and more resolution before diffraction sets in. This is a not insignificant difference, considering all those that call DX dead because full frame is coming, for about the same difference in light-gathering potential and resolution limitation.
      Another big difference for me is that I can still afford, carry and hand-hold an f/5.6 400mm wildlife lens on APS-C. With full frame, at 500mm or 600mm, not so much. 1-inch has an advantage here, but it’s an advantage in degree, not a system-defining change like requiring an SUV to transport your gear when you go from APS-C to full frame.

      • 24×36

        “… requiring an SUV to transport your gear when you go from APS-C to full frame.” Honestly?
        You’re being ridiculous here. I’ve used “full frame” film and digital gear for decades, and never needed anything bigger than a subcompact car to “transport my gear.” The size/weight difference between APS-C and FF gear is nothing if you have equivalent (in every sense) lenses, and might actually favor FF in that respect (see the Sigma 18-35 f 1.8, as big and heavy as the average FF 24-70, with far less range). Even accepting compromises in DOF and noise, the difference is minimal, and certainly not something that requires a bigger vehicle to transport.
        BTW, a 600mm f8.7 would be the FF equivalent of a 400mm f5.6 on APS-C, and it wouldn’t be much bigger and heavier, if at all – and that 400 f 5.6 you can “afford, carry and hand hold” is a FF lens, much bigger and heavier than it needs to be to cover an APS-C image circle, like essentially all quality tele lenses longer than 150mm. You can always crop to APS-C size when necessary on a FF to get the APS-C “reach,” with a camera like the D800/D800e. you won’t need any more pixels, so that lame argument is no longer holding much water.

        • Pat Mann

          Shooting APS-C format on a D800 is not a practical answer for those who do wildlife photography on APS-C. The extra pixels of the APS-C camera are in fact quite useful, using a full-frame finder to view the 42% of the finder area in the APS-C frame is not practical (you can’t see the shot data and you dim the view with a magnifier), and the camera doesn’t have a competitive frame rate, though the frame rate is probably borderline adequate for 95% of my needs. I’m assuming a 24mp D400 here with performance similar to the D300s as my next camera.

          Since I rarely shoot at maximum aperture just to get minimum depth of field (I’m usually shooting at max to get more light), I always make my comparisons of DX and FX lenses at the same aperture, not equivalent DOF. You make your comparison your way, I’m the one doing the purchasing using my comparison, and the one budgeting to buy the wildlife lens. Nobody’s offering me a 600mm f/8.7 lens out there in the marketplace. The 600mm lens on offer is f/4, costs as much as my used Corolla, and requires a completely different approach to mounting that weighs at least twice as much as what I use with 400 f/5.6, making getting to the site with the whole kit an entirely different calculus.

          • Asenkhan

            but dx format compared to fx in terms of low light capability the fx format is the best for you.

      • Thom Hogan

        The tradeoffs are difficult. As I’ve pointed out, one of the problems is that we’ve got compacts selling for more than DSLRs, mirrorless selling for the same or more than an equivalent DSLR; basically we have a log-jam in the US$600-1100 price range. The reason for that is simple: gross profit margin.

        The only way to build a US$300-600 camera that’s profitable is by reducing costs. Fewer parts, smaller sensor, no EVF, etc.

        From a shooter’s standpoint, APS (or even full frame) compacts make sense from an image quality standpoint. Same DSLR image quality, smaller package (assuming you’re talking about a simpler lens that retracts). But then the price puts it at the same price point as a DSLR. So basically you pay for small and tend to lose something in the equation (no EVF on the Coolpix A). While we can find people who will make that tradeoff, they’re mostly a sub-set, or niche.

        The problem for Nikon is that they need to make 7m US$600-1100 cameras a year to grow. Sure, they’ll grab some niche plays along the way, but the real issue for Canon, Nikon, and Sony is this: what’s going to sell in the millions of copies?

        When you bring that down to the compact camera, the question becomes “what’s going to sell in the millions of copies at <US$500 and still retain our GPM?" The RX100 didn't get there in two of three attributes. It sells decently, but it isn't going to make Sony the number one camera maker.

        • Thom Hogan

          Not sure what happened to that: even when I edit that last paragraph it still comes out as nonsense.

          Should read “what’s going to sell in the millions of copies a less than US$500 and retain our GPM?” The Sony RX100 fails at two of the three elements in that, so by itself it’s not going to help make Sony number one in cameras. That’s the core problem: you need to make products that resonate with a huge range of users, and you have to respect the way the market has broken out (compacts less than US$500, consumer DSLRs US$600-1100, high-end enthusiast gear greater than US$1100). When you make something out of those established ranges, it has to really shine to get traction.

          • photdog

            If you only look after the number of customers ending up in going into the cunsumer cameras, you gotta like with a bunch of risks: low-level consumers buy their cameras by price, MP, and fashion color. And the vast majority will just add a kit lens. Period.
            Taking yearly renewing cycle, shipment and the margin for the sellers in acount, how much do you think, will stay in the pockets of Nikon on A DSLR below D3xxx???? (talking about a $400 camera)
            I’m still quite confident, that a D400 would be the better deal for Nikon (and especially better for their image)
            The X-Pro 1 will certainly have a lifespan of 4 years and together with the XE 1 is apparently selling well. Furthermore Fuji was able to generate trust in the longevity of their x-line that even Zeiss went for it. (I don’t think that Zeiss would have spent a second though in going for Nikon 1, do you?) Such a line (like Fuji X cameras) would have matched the tradition of Nikon far better that Nikon 1 and A.
            Maybe it is time for Nikon to research other sensor systems than Bayer. Fuji did successfully and according to the rumors Canon is about the reinvent the Foveon with their 75 Mp sensor.

            If Nikon continues to follow the mass market, we will see the day they got overtaken by another company.

            • Thom Hogan

              People seem to not understand what’s actually happening. Fujifilm is a very low volume player now, and getting smaller in terms of units shipped. Essentially, they’ve gone niche. Canon and Nikon have to be careful about going niche too early in a decline. 60% of Nikon’s CORPORATE sales are DSLRs and lenses. They’ve already turned from what looked like a growth company to a no-growth company. I warned about this some time ago, that Nikon was probably making a mistake that will eventually hurt them big time by pushing all the unit volume in low end cameras of all sorts.

              As for Zeiss. They, too, are a niche player and not a high-volume one, so launching on niche products makes sense.

              I’d be a little surprised if Nikon launched a D1000 as admin suggests they just said. That’s not how I read what they said. They said they need to turn the low-end DSLR line faster. They had been on a once-a-year change at the low end (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100) but now seem to be on a two-year change cycle. The problem I see is that they still have D3100′s in inventory, though. So even if they turn out a D3300 sooner rather than later, they still have a lot of D3100 and D3200 to sell, and the only way to do that will be on discount.

              Will Nikon be overtaken? I doubt it. The only player that could do that is Sony. Fujifilm ships in the hundreds of thousands, not millions, and that’s not going to change soon. Will Nikon falter? Well, sure, that’s what I’ve been predicting for awhile now.

              Note that the same thing happened in the film era. When the growth disappeared and it became a declining market, Canon and Nikon were the only volume players left. Nikon declined in market share to the point where they were trying to hold onto 25% max. If Nikon didn’t learn from that go around, they will have a similar problem. But 25%, while not their current 35%, is still better than anyone else achieves.

            • Photdog

              I agree to most of your points. Sure Fuji is a far smaller player. But the decisive question is, is the turn over of the Fuji x serie higher than that of the Nikon 1 serie? If so, then a concept close to the Fuji x serie might have been the better choice for Nikon in my opinion.
              In the bloom of the film era Nikon was the No 1 for professionals even though the field of competition was far larger as more companies tried to break in into the pro market. In the phase of change to the digital Canon was ahead and some competitors gave up more or less and / or came up with another concept.
              Now another change is on its way and it is to observe how especially the 2 remaining big players canon and Nikon will manage the situation. Most of their DSLR lenses are coming to their limits with the 36MP FF and the 24 MP APS-C sensor. The next sensor generation with far more MP might lead these lenses to exeed their border. To adapt the program to this requirements isn’t done over night, especially as the customers will be confronted with huge investments if Canon and Nikon do not start the updates of the lens line up very soon. And what is the use of the best body if the lenses can’t keep up?
              However, the statements from Nikon do not leave me with the impression, that they will let go the consumer market more, but enforce it. That apparently do not leave them the necessary space and capital to do the adaptations.

            • Thom Hogan

              The X series for Fuji is all they’ve got. Of the 10 cameras they claim to be keeping in the lineup, we know already that 6 of them are X (X20, X100s, the mirrorless X’s). Essentially, they’ve staked their ground on APS, on mirrorless, and on fairly straightforward still cameras. The problem is that, while the buzz has been good, the sales numbers are still relatively low. Nikon couldn’t afford to sell that few US$600-1200 cameras.

              I just got the 32mm f/1.2 Nikon 1 lens. What strikes me is this: the engineering team may have a different vision of CX than the marketing team. Marketing team says “sell to women.” Engineering team says “here’s a fast, expensive, really excellent performing lens.” Something is really squirrely with the Nikon 1. There’s no clear mission here, as the some of the hardware points one direction, some of their marketing messages the other.

              I don’t agree that lenses are “coming to their limits.” More sampling is always good, and the current lens sets absolutely resolve more than the sensors in the center. What people are seeing is edge to edge performance, diffraction, and a host of other issues. They were always there. Many of us saw them in film, too.

              We need to define “consumer.” Nikon has a bunch of different consumers: compacts, Nikon 1, and DSLRs. What I believe Nikon said is that they will defend DSLR consumer and they have to rethink the other two. But as I’ve tried to point out, they’ve put themselves in the position they’re in. In the 90′s they made most of their money by selling a hundred or two units of steppers. In the 00′s they made most of their money selling millions of cameras. Going back to low volume, high-price products only to drive the business won’t work. There isn’t enough high-end photography market left. That’s not to say they should ignore it. Anyone who reads what I write knows I don’t believe that. But for Nikon to stay out of the red, I think they have to have an answer for the entire space between smartphones and FX DSLRs. As I’ve tried to point out in various ways, they don’t really have a great answer other than perhaps the DX DSLR space (and even then we’re missing lenses). They got to where they are because they executed really well when the tide was floating all boats. The tide is going out and stranding boats now.

          • sperdynamite

            But the RX100 has sold so well that they didn’t even have to do a true upgrade for it, just a refinement. It’s a perfect entry into that format size. They’re not gonna beat out Nikon with the A99, but the RX100 helps them sell NEX’s and Alphas by building brand recognition. If somebody asks “whats the best point and shoot on the market?” The answer is pretty clearly the RX100. When somebody asks, whats the best mirrorless camera/system on the market? No one would say the NIkon 1 system. They might not say Fuji, Sony or m4/3rds, but the 1 system is pretty unpopular, and for good reason. Capable as it may be, it’s not what the market wants. Nikon should focus on their professional brand, because I really can’t see what else they’re good at.

            • Thom Hogan

              “didn’t even have to do a true upgrade for it.”

              Guess you haven’t used the II. It’s better in areas where the original was weak. But I’d need proof of the “sold so well” to “didn’t have to” claim you’re making. I could as easily say “RX100 sold well enough that Sony wanted to protect it from the certain coming competition.” Neither your statement nor mine are based in fact; they’re conjecture.

              As for “when somebody asks what’s the best mirrorless camera on the market,” the correct response is “why do you need a mirrorless camera?” ;~)

            • sperdynamite

              True enough that I don’t have sales data on the camera, but it’s had quite a buzz around it since it came out and they saw fit to make a newish one. And Hasselblad chose to ruin/upgrade it to a disgusting piece of wealth kitch.

              My answer to why someone needs a mirrorless camera would be: because they choose to purchase one. If you can’t see the reasons, then I’m not sure you’re the best person to comment on their design. The reason someone would have chosen an NEX-5 over a D3100 seem pretty obvious to me. Even more so for an X-Pro1 over a D7100. It’s not all about the numbers on a spec sheet, which is exactly what Nikon is doing wrong. They’re not making cameras that are fun to use.

            • Thom Hogan

              Again, I want to point out that “buzz” and “sales” are not the same thing. Buzz can lead to sales, but it’s not sales, and it usually takes time for buzz to turn into real sales differential. I happen to like the RX100 a lot, and it’s in my pocket at the moment. But it’s still as expensive as a DSLR, and that puts a lot of people off. The Ricoh GR has good buzz, too. It’s not the best selling compact camera out there, either, though it’s almost certainly Ricoh’s top seller right now. You have to distinguish between “Sony (or Ricoh) being happy with a high end compact’s sales level” and “Customers actually gobbling the camera up in volumes larger than other product.” The RX line is a start of something for Sony, and right now it’s unique. That might not last long, and then we’ll see what happens. That’s the problem with “buzz.” It goes away and something else gets it. You absolutely have to translate buzz into sales, rapidly. Sony’s trying to do that by iterating, but the price is still the thing that slows a lot of folk down. I’ve seen people at the sales counter actually say “how much worse can that Coolpix P330 be, and it’s less than half the price.”

            • http://www.gordonmoat.com/ Gordon Moat

              It seems that Thom and some of the others posting see two different things. Many here are enthusiasts, and biased towards niche cameras. Thom is right, camera companies that want/need super high volume are not going to get it from niche products, no matter how nice nor how much buzz those niche cameras generate. I would suspect that Nikon 1 sales exceeded Fuji XPro1 and XE-1 sales, despite that most people commenting here would not consider a Nikon 1. However, it does seem that Nikon really is confused with the 1 System, in that fast lenses are not appearing, and there are now so many body choices, and colours, that the system is confusing.

  • Joseph Li

    Interesting. Let’s price it at $200 each and we shall all forget about seeing anymore COMPACTS.

  • Triggerfloop

    I would love a Nikon D600-800 type WITHOUT video. I have no interest in shooting video. if I did, i would get a video camera–when one device tries to do too many things, it generally does none of them as well as a dedicated device. I don’t care for the “Swiss Army Knife” school of electronic design…

    • Renato S.

      It’s better for them to add video and if you don’t want you don’t use rather than simply ignore that segment of the market. By no mean adding a decent video equal a swiss army knife. They are just adding video, it’s not like Nikon has to start from zero with photography, it’s just photo AND video, there are not so MANY things.

      And it’s not as simple as if you like video just buy a good camera, you are basically eliminating people that like both photography and video, people that wants that lack of depth of field look, video cameras are way more expensive and so on. You can’t simply live in a world that you are the only habitant and you ignore everyone else just because they have different needs.

    • peteee363

      you mean like a updated d700? I loved the d700, it is awesome. yes, the d800 is better, but I don’t need more then half of the stuff they put in it. I would prefer a dslr with an interchangeable sensor/electronics card. so I don’t need to keep buying the body, only the electronics in it.

      • http://micahmedia.com/ Micah

        “Better” is subjective. The low frame rate is a non-starter for me. Nikon’s processing pipeline seems to be the bottleneck at the moment. They’ve gone for quality over quantity (compare the latest OOC jpegs, for once I think they’ve finally gotten a leg up on Canon, who had them beat for a long time). All the latest gen cameras are crunching about the same mb/s. If they had some sort of processing to double throughput, we’d see a lot faster frame rates from every model. The sensors and mirrors can handle it.

        They desperately need this to keep ahead. Continuous shooting with good AF is where DSLRs beat the mirrorless cams by a country mile. CDAF is only going to get better. To keep ahead, they’re going to have to stop sacrificing frame rate with the next gen.

  • Renato S.

    Nikon1 failure is for the lack cojones.

    Nikon1 has nice feats like high speed video, quick burst mode that Nikon DSLR doesn’t have but 1″ sensor won’t do for most photographers wanting a second or third camera, they would be better off with m4/3 cameras.

    Nikon, just like Canon, should had gone bold with APS-C and FF mirrorless cameras with a new mount. They lose their advatage with a new mount but better sooner than later.

    Both Canon and Nikon are paying for being so stupidly conservative towards their DSLR. Nikon did try something new but with “not hurting DSLR” in mind, Canon did something with NO INNOVATION AT ALL but with the same stupid mentality.

    It won’t be now, because DSLR are selling well, but one day they will end up paying for being like that.

    Fuji is earning users and respect from Canikon PRO photographers and there are many of them jumping system for a lighter system with great optics and full commitments from Fuji. Sony is coming up with a FF NEX and new strategies for DSLR-form cameras – but Sony lacks so much when it comes to deliver lenses, so many bodies, so many bodies…

    The even lower entry level from each Canon and Nikon just show a temporary solution, which serves only to fool themselves. I know that as long as that sells, they will keep with that, they are just too comfortable, I expected more from Canikon.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Yep, I forgot that Canon’s mirrorless camera is also a flop for now.

      • E.J. Peiker

        For different reasons though. It’s a poorly specced camera that performs very poorly. At least the nikon 1 can focus well. Canon’s EOS-M, even with the new Firmware focuses no better than a $200 point and shoot. It’s pretty tough to be successful when every review gives it poor ratings due to AF.

        • Kevin Purcell

          “At least the nikon 1 can focus well.”

          The Nikon 1 shows what future mirrorless cameras (perhaps with DSLR lens mounts and bodies) with on-sensor PDAF + CDAF can do.

          The other key is a very fast sensor: the Aptina sensor was designed for 4K with full frame output at 60Hz. The focus system makes use of that.

          Entry level DSLRs can’t do that right now: limited numbers of focus points that really are points and not areas is a pain.

  • Robert Isha

    i bought Olympus omd em5..i cant believe how much fun i am having with this little camera..my d800 is on kijiji for sale..the future is small..but what works for me might not work for you

    • patto01

      Not trying to be a jerk or anything but if you’re selling your d800 and going Olympus, why are you still monitoring this website?

      • preston

        Because he’s addicted to the NikonRumors drug like so many of us on here are!

  • BRYANL

    Good info as always (Admin)…This is why I visit this site “everyday”…Thx u for all you do for this site…And makes total perfect sense…Nikon is waiting for the 7D before they bring the D400..My question is about the “newer” D4/X…Will MP be too slow in there “top of the line-low-light-speed demon monster”..??? Or will they do a D4S and D4X with higher pixels like the D3S/D3X combo???

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I think for now they will just do a high resolution version (D4x). Maybe next year there will be a D4s.

      • M!

        i believe it would be a D4S for dec 2013 announcement, jan 2014 delivery for sochi olympics 2014. and the D4S would have a highly integrated networking capability (from remote trigger to data upload). a high MP D4x would be a year later. Nikon marketing is not just dependant on the photographers, but by Canon marketing. As soon as Canon announces a pro 40MP+ body, Nikon will announce theirs within a month, and deliver it quicker than Canon.

        • Thom Hogan

          Agree. If there’s a D4s, it needs to be ready by Sochi. Second choice, World Cup 2014.

    • M!

      for sure, there will be a new D4X/D4S for the winter olympics this coming 2014/2/7-23. expect it to be announced dec 2013 and getting to pros jan 2014. it’s a logical guess as well, if their new Exspeed 4 processor is 30% or better, what could be the frame rate or MP increase? i would not be surprised if nikon listen to the pros and get some more wireless or network integration in a D4S with just better MP and slight increase in FR. D4X could still be in the works considering how Zeiss is putting together their new line of lenses, but no point throwing that out when people are okay with a D800 at the moment.

  • Kevin

    i think this is a good move. a decent number of people i talked to think dslrs are better than mirrorless because… well, a dslr looks like a dslr. there are too many technical details involved for a consumer to understand why one camera is better than the other…. so just throw in some gimmicky retro-style cameras that kind of look like dslrs and consumers will buy them.

    but don’t forget to keep making good products for your enthursiasts/professionals though! :D

    • fred

      There are a lot of avid 60+ yr olds who love the retro design cameras – mainly because they look familiar and have the simple manual dials/controls.

  • UnknownTransit

    The sensors in compacts aren’t getting better. MP stop growing and image quality haven’t changed. Why will I buy a new compact when my two year old compact is just as good? Obviously the market will diminished. At this rate, the APS-C market will diminished once all those who want an DSLR buys a DSLR. I guess the market is now in the low-end FF DSLRs.

    • Renato S.

      most of that has nothing to do with the lack of better IQ, it’s just about Smartphone, that’s it. when a person wants a significant better IQ, they go for high-end compact or entry-level ILC, for everyone else, they just use their Smartphone. That’s what eating P&S market.

    • Thom Hogan

      Please show proof of your assertion. If you’re saying my 20mp RX-100II isn’t better than the Coolpix 7000 or Canon G10 I used to use, you would be wrong.

      The giveaway in your assertion is the term “just as good.” This is generally code for “I can’t really see any meaningful difference based upon the way I use the camera.” But that’s exactly why smartphones gobbled up the compact camera market place in the first place.

  • E.J. Peiker

    The Leica comment is silly. Leica is a very small private company with a tiny fraction of the employees that Nikon has that doesn’t have to answer to a shareholder base.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      The point was that they are doing well considering their market. They still have investors and Leica was a publicly traded company till last year: http://leicarumors.com/2012/10/03/leica-camera-ag-is-now-100-privately-owned.aspx/

      • zoetmb

        By any standard, Leica is a niche company and it lost money for years. While Nikon is not as large as Canon, Nikon wants to be a mass market company and it has to be, otherwise prices will rise far beyond what they are now.

    • FredBear

      Agree with you. If Nikon drop their ‘bread and butter’ lines then ‘shared resources’ will no longer be ‘shared’ and the DSLR costs will rise. So we would end up with Nikons at similar market prices to Leica – and I know what I’d buy at the same price point…..

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

        The problem is that the bread and butter lines, or at least some of them (Coolpix) will be completely gone in few years. The rest of the bread and butter lines (entry level Nikon DSLR cameras) will have to fiercely compete with mirrorless solutions from various manufacturers that had several years head start. So what’s left? Hight end DSLR cameras. Unless Nikon can somehow dominate the smart phone and/or mirrorless market in the next few years, high end DSLR cameras and lenses will be the only thing left for their Imaging division.

        • Fools Gold

          and High end Lenses and/or sensors that it can sell to the companies that make the phones for the cellphone companies. Theres is always other ways to make money in emerging markets.

        • Vsevolod Zhovtenko

          Mirrorrless is no way a danger to DSLRs – read Thom’s article – http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-problems-continu.html

          • preston

            That extreme opinion is yours, not Thom’s (based on his article). Mirrorless are absolutely a danger to slr’s. It’s just a matter of the right specs and price point of the body. For example, if Nikon came out with an FX MILC similar is size to the Sony RX1 and priced at $2,600, you don’t think it would eat away at both D600 and D800 sales? You already have pros like Trey Ratcliff switching from a D800 to the NEX system. .

            • Vsevolod Zhovtenko

              He stated it pretty clearly: “It clearly appears that mirrorless may be turning into a regional phenomena, not a global one, and that we may be entering an era where some products are only available on a regional basis.”
              FF MILC won’t eat away any significant part of d800 or d600 sales because APS-C sensor MILC haven’t managed to do this with consumer dslrs which have less advantages over milk

            • FredBear

              Remember that this pertains more to the US than other countries. Eventually economics will dictate that the US has to follow suite or pay a price penalty for wanting ‘the biggest’.

            • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

              Every mirrorless camera sold today is one less camera Nikon or Canon could have sold if there there were no mirrorless options today. I think that ultimately mirrorless is a danger to DSLRs, especially to the low end and medium segment.

            • Thom Hogan

              I doubt that assertion.

            • Thom Hogan

              Let’s define the “danger.” As long as Canon, Nikon, and Sony make a graceful transition from DSLR to EVF ILC, there’s no real danger. It’s just that future cameras don’t have mirrors or prisms, probably making them cheaper to build. The real danger is that Sony solves the EVF ILC problem first without a quick follow-up from Canon and Nikon (of course, Sony would also need quite a few more Alpha lenses, too).

              I’ve written for some time that somewhere off in the future our “DSLRs” won’t have mirrors and prisms. They’ll still be EOS and F-mount and Alpha mount though. They may even look pretty much the same and have most of the same features we expect.

              The question I’ve been asking since 2009 (and answering) is whether a new mount mirrorless system will eclipse the existing DSLR mounts. The answer appears to be no, though Sony has found that NEX seriously threatened their own crop sensor Alphas.

              The high-end photo market is indeed high-end. It demands larger sensors, lots of lenses. Nikon 1 and m4/3 fail at the larger sensor bit. EOS M fails at the lots of lenses bit (and it slowed NEX, too).

              We’re now near the point where the DSLR mounts with on-sensor PD might be able to take over from off-sensor PD, which makes them “mirrorless.” If that happens, it becomes another problem for the existing mirrorless players to deal with, including Sony competing with themselves. What we’ve regarded as “mirrorless” so far would have only one primary benefit: size. Based upon my analysis of data, size alone not accompanied by lower price doesn’t actually resonate into sales. Smaller size and lower price does.

            • jk

              I think so too , probably next iteration of the D800 kind will not have the mirror but EVF with golbal shutter.
              I think Nikon should also opt for at least 4K since they do not have pro-video division (unlike Canon, sony , Red ,etc) , they have nothing to lose by going all pro hybrid Digital mirroless F mount camera.

            • jk

              I think next gen D800 successor would be a mirroless , I mean F mount mirrorless with PDAF on the sensor.
              so in a couple of years we will not have any REAL D-SLR choice any more.
              And , I think it will be a good thing.
              Hope they will get some kind of Global shuttered sensor from Sony (the one used in the F55 or F5 or somehting like that).

        • FredBear

          That’s my point. Nikon cannot survive on just DSLRS – and what will these DSLRS be? Only FF or a mix of FF and cropped?
          Looks like we will end up with mobiles, ‘bridge cameras’ then top-flight DSLRs for where they’re absolutely needed.
          Nikon can’t survive on DSLRS alone and my guess is that within a few years you will only have FF DSLRs – so they (Nikon) make phones or ‘bridge cameras’ to bolster revenue?
          And will the ‘bridge cameras’ be 1″, crop or FF sensors?

          • Thom Hogan

            Just to be clear, 60% of every dollar Nikon took in was due to DSLRs last quarter. So this “can’t survive on DSLRs” notion is incorrect, I believe. Coolpix was 16% of every dollar Nikon took in. The real issue for them (and Canon, who’s reported an even greater dependence on DSLRs) is that the Coolpix number is going to go down, but the DSLR number isn’t going up any more.

            • FredBear

              It depends on what you mean by ‘X% of every dollar Nikon took in’. Is this % sales value or profit?
              One also needs to factor in the contribution of the other cameras to the operating expenditure recovery to see what impact this has.
              But otherwise, yes, DSLRs are not making any great headway into the market whilst mobiles are – for the time being.
              So where lies the middle ground? Would appear to be small, lower cost, competent cameras that can approach the IQ of the DSLRS.

            • Thom Hogan

              I thought I was clear: every sales dollar. Profit dollars would probably be far higher as a percentage for DSLRs, as Precision and Other divisions lost money, and I can’t believe that Coolpix made money in the quarter. It could be >100% of Nikon’s profits were DSLRs.

            • FredBear

              Evidently not.
              I had assumed that you were talking about ‘profit $’ as simply equating profitability to ‘sales $’ will not work in a consumer orientated company.
              One has to know the profitability.

  • Sahaja

    Why not concentrate on the D4, D800 segment of the market?

    Nikon would have to massively downsize to do that.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I did not mean to complete eliminate entry level cameras. Keep them alive, but concentrate on pro gear instead of the other way around.

      • Vsevolod Zhovtenko

        Isn’t it good already? And it generates small portion of revenue.

      • jk

        exactly, that’s what they should have done , not many of small One inch sensor or entry level DX guys pay much for lenses anyway.
        in fact , I think they should go all FX(FX pro mirrorless, FX mirroless and FX DSLR shaped pro grade mirrorless).
        and maybe also need a LV 645 digital camera?

      • Thom Hogan

        Let’s put numbers on that: cameras and lenses are 75%+ of Nikon’s sales last quarter. 20% of that was Coolpix. 30% of that was pro cameras (maybe even less, still trying to resolve some numbers). In other words, about half of 75%, or 37%+ of the company’s sales were due to mirrorless and entry-to-”flagship” (;~) DSLRs.

        Nikon’s statement was actually about that very group: they basically said they need to rethink part of it, and accelerate iteration of the other part of it.

        Let’s face it, D300s and up is a good business and a profitable one, but not a high volume business. Making that the primary business would drastically downsize the company. As I’ve pointed out for quite some time now, this is a classic market squeeze. Smartphones disrupted and stole the low end. Sensors have gotten so good that you don’t need to buy every generation of high end equipment. A D7000 is still a darned good camera and you’re chasing modest gains by upgrading to a D7100. A D7100 (if it weren’t for the buffer) might be all prosumers and pros on a budget really need image-quality wise.

        That leaves the US$500-1000 space as the remaining space for volume, and even that’s tricky. At US$550 you’ve got to be better than a D3200. You also have to make the argument for why the smartphone user steps up to you.

        We’re going to have some announcements in September that close the window for mass cameras some more. The squeeze continues, and I don’t see it ending any time soon. Nikon very well may end up having to concentrate on pro gear, but not for the right reasons but because that’s all that’s left. The good news for them about that is that they really only have one clear competitor there at the moment. But their competitor is seeing the same problem.

  • Fools Gold

    If nikon really wants to make money then, in my opinion ( which means I will purchase these lenses at least), they should make: AF- S 14-26G f/1.8 with SWM, ED, N, SIC coatings and has a screw on filter so the elements don’t s!*^ on the front glass. This will blow away the new sigma lens, but no cutting corners on this nikon; invest in revolutionarily engineered products. Also, they should make either a AF-S 125G f/2 or AF-S 70-200 f/2 both with: SWM, ED, N, SIC, IF, VR. The more coatings possible the better, but remain innovative and madly meticulous on design and engineering. Maybe make a new, depth lens style, fisheye to show some love to the skaters or a super wide angle for the dx peeps. I am just saying nikon! Its really not that hard. :(

    • preston

      I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. Sigma’s f/1.8 zoom lens could only be that size and take filters because it is a DX lens. Olympus has f/2 zoom lenses for 4/3, which is an even smaller sensor than DX. Even then, the Olympus 35-100 f/2 (the 70-200 FOV equiv.) is larger and heavier than the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. A Nikon 70-200 f/2 would have to be so big and expensive that nobody would buy it. I won’t even address your dream of a 14-26 f/1.8 with a screw on filter.

  • click

    If you are goning too cheap, the quality will be poor. And if you have negative experience with the lifetime of your Nikon prodct, may be they turn to canon or other competitors.Why there is no $100 iPhone? Please Nikon: Marketshare is not all. Think about the pro-amateurs and semi-pros. Think about a 14-24 f/4,or a D610 with better AF and 1/8000.

    • fred

      aaaaaand a D400 (or even a fps pimped 7100X).

  • PSV

    Hello to all
    I would love to see Nikonin future to hav a service that could allow us to change old camera sensors like D1 or D2 or my lovely D2Xs to more modern Sensrors like D7100.
    That will could brng to life some old very good and reliabe camera bodies.
    If Sigma started mounting shift program, Nikon could go a litle further. :)

    • Vsevolod Zhovtenko

      Change of sensor would require rplacement of imaging processor and other electroncs, which makes whole idea irrelevant.

      • click

        It could be a module (like a graphic card in your PC) with all the components

    • I AM GOUGING MY CUSTOMERS

      The idea (even if it’s not practical) makes sense to everyone except Nikon.
      Nikon in 2013 is not the company that produced AI conversion kits..

  • click

    The Future is the cloud. All the future Nikon cameras will not have a memory card slot anymore. All your pictures are uploaded to the nikon cloud and it will cost you only 3 cents per picture per day. That is the way Nikon will make money.

    • 1j2

      That would be great news for Fuji :-)

      • Can’t Believe It

        Well, Adobe and Microsoft have both decided that subscriptions are best way to make money, so why not Nikon?

        • jk

          but Google or Apple did not decide to go that direction yet.

  • click

    I have just read an article on a german website: They said: The low-price segment of the compact cameras dies.

    http://www.heise.de/foto/meldung/Kameraleben-nach-5-Jahren-aufs-Abstellgleis-1932696.html

  • 1j2

    What the Nikon 1 needs to be successfull is a 50% price drop. The camera is great, it is just way to expensive. An affordable 1.8/32 could also help.

  • Plug

    I am lucky in that I can afford to spend comfortably. I love my camera hobby and have always owned Nikon. But I have not bought a substantial Nikon item in over two years nor see any change. They are not updating to things that I desire, and my current kit suffices. I can’t speak about anyone else, but if they want to take money off me then they are not going the right way about it.

  • I AM IN TERMINAL DECLINE

    Nikon have lost the plot.

  • Smudger

    Historically, Nikon’s strength has always been professional and top end enthusiast gear. The low end stuff, starting with the EM was seen mainly as a pathway into the system.
    Now the tail is wagging the (dying) dog.

    • Thom Hogan

      Nikon has tried at least four times to become a consumer company through entry options. Only the current iteration has been what you could call successful.

      Personally, I’ve never understood that infatuation with the consumer customer. It requires faster turn cycles, it requires extreme cost management, it requires superb advertising, marketing, and distribution skills, and successful consumer products quickly commodify, which means that you eventually attract lots and lots of competition and you must have the lowest costs to survive. That last part is exactly what happened with digital cameras. The sales peak year for digital camera was way higher than the sales peak for film cameras. Moreover, the upward growth slope was faster and steeper. That’s why we had 64 compact camera makers at one point.

      My biggest problem has been this: Nikon for most of their history has claimed that the common denominator amongst all their products that made them successful was optical skills. In the last decade they removed that statement from their Web site. So what is Nikon today? I think they’ve lost focus, pardon the pun.

      • Graham

        Indeed. Who needs any further choice of cheap cameras? We are already flooded with look-alikes that all do the job extremely well (for the needs of ‘consumers’): even the old D40 suits family snapshooters adequately (as the dreaded KR endlessly points out) — for amateur sport and moving children. P&S or IPhones do the rest.
        (Leaving aside the needs of professionals, and the commensurate demands on DSLR development), what ‘enthusiasts’, those who appreciate Nikon’s core skills, and keen landscape photographers are all demanding is a move towards Quality that comes primarily from ‘fatter’ pixels (with the best possible glass): i.e. FF! Anyone who has moved up from DX (such as when adopting the D700/3 over the D200) has already recognised that indefinable step up in quality.
        Nikon’s future, as a leader and innovator, must be to win over or to hold onto those still hankering after the virtues of digital MF (Hasselblad / Phase etc.), even if these shooters are not in the majority. DX is already developed enough: we don’t need any more pixels to slow things down. However, what everyone is demanding (except sports and news pros etc.) is to Shed Weight while boosting DR and overall smoothness. Not everyone likes Fuji’s colours; many would prefer anyhow to stick to their Nikon lens systems. Losing the mirror goes a long way too towards removing vibration. An EVF is essential, everyone agrees.
        PhotoRumors tells us that Sony will bring out a FF NEX and maybe a RX interchangeable, within months, or less than a year. Pentax maybe too. Without a clear policy statement from NIkon, why should these many potential customers not jump ship immediately (given Sony’s remarkable sensor)? To survive, Nikon must act Immediately! Many would be sorry both to abandon them and to see the firm collapse as have so many others.

  • Guest

    Nikon D3300 when?

    • I AM NONSENSICAL

      Soon, and like the D3200 it will have a much bigger RAW buffer than the D7100.
      That makes sense doesn’t it?

  • decisivemoment

    So what is this extremely good, rather expensive 18-140 kit lens for? Bundling D7100 bodies at Costco?

  • BMarkT

    Why can’t they release a product line similar to BlackMagic’s product line-up but using Nikon AF-S lenses with fully enabled functions? What could that cost/make them?

  • twoomy

    Making an extremely small dSLR would be a smart move for Nikon. If you can make something that’s not significantly bigger than NEX or Micro-Four-Thirds products, suddenly, you’re competing in the mirrorless market and you have decades of lenses to support the system. I’d gladly carry a mini-Nikon alongside my bigger D800.

  • Scott

    “other even suggest a simplified retro-styled full frame camera without video and other high tech gimmicks” … a digital FM2? I hope so, I have a lot of old AI and AI-s Glass that would go perfectly with it.

  • Alex

    Digital FM3a!!
    Full frame, no more than 18mpx, no movie and other unuseful features, sealed, compact and light to take it always with you.
    Just high quality photography!!!

  • zoetmb

    Nikon “failed” with the mirrorless Nikon 1, so it looks like their brilliant strategy is to abandon that line and release a lower priced DSLR. But the problem with the Nikon 1 wasn’t the concept/strategy, it was the execution. IMO, most consumers aren’t saying that “I don’t want a DSLR because they’re too expensive”, they’re saying, “I don’t want to carry around a DSLR and my smartphone already gives me the quality I need for most purposes.”

    And as Thom wrote, the pricing doesn’t make sense where the small sensor Nikon 1 costs as much or more than a low-end DSLR.

    Street price on a D3100 w/lens originally listed at $700 and the current street price is $447. If Nikon releases a new lesser body, the initial street price will be higher than what the D3100 sells for today for less camera. So that’s not going to solve any consumer’s desires. It has to be a different concept of a camera.

    The question is if the Nikon 1 had approximately the same form factor, but had a DX sensor like the Coolpix A, would it have been more of a success? And if Nikon does abandon the Nikon 1 line, how many customers will they alienate who might have eventually upgraded to a Nikon DSLR?

    In addition, if Nikon can list the D3100 for $700, why is the Coolpix A $1100? The Coolpix A has some potential at a lower price.

    I also have to believe that Nikon left a lot of money on the table by not releasing a D400. There are plenty of people who wanted to upgrade their D70s, D200s, D300s, etc., who didn’t like the consumer body/controls of the D600 and couldn’t afford the D800.

    Half of the DSLR lens line lists at over $1000. That’s too expensive. In fiscal 2013, Nikon sold 1.39 lenses per body (which means most consumers never buy another lens beyond the kit lens, which means they never needed that DSLR in the first place). The industry average was 1.54 lenses per body. In the first quarter of this fiscal, Nikon did slightly better: 1.41 lenses per body. They have to give consumers a good reason to buy another lens, but they’re not going to do so when most lenses cost more than the consumer spent on the initial body and lens combined.

    All the “geniuses” on this site have their own opinion of what Nikon should do, including myself. Most of our ideas would probably put Nikon out of business. But one thing I’d like to see is the digital equivalent of the old Olympus OM-1: a high performance full-frame DSLR in a much smaller, lighter (but still robust) body at a reasonable price. In the 1970s, i had switched from my Nikkormat to the Olympus and greatly preferred the Olympus. With Olympus’ low-vibration shutter, I was able to shoot at much slower speeds hand-held and IIRC, they had faster lenses at lower prices.

    And one last point: where does Nikon promote the higher end cameras? I see ads for the low-end, but never for the high-end. Nikon has to make consumers desire those cameras, even if they can’t afford them now.

    • decisivemoment

      I really don’t want Nikon to walk away from the 1. It’s the only mirrorless camera this side of Leica that actually cuts the mustard in terms of speed and responsiveness. And the fact that at least the V1 shares batteries as well as lenses with the F mount is another plus.

      But if Nikon persists in demanding the prices they’re demanding for the 1 and the A, then there has to be some justification, some explanation as to why they’re worth it. People sniffing around an electronics store don’t see the A’s fantastic resolution, or the instant speed of a V1 or V2, or the other-worldly VR performance of the 30-110 1 series zoom, or the video performance of any 1-series body. They see a DSLR standing nearby for $200 less. And if they take the time to pixel peep, they see a less noisy sensor. But they never see the superior print the 1 and A will often end up actually producing. And so, even if 90 percent of the time in the hands of 90 percent of the people, the 1 or A will actually produce a better, sharper image that better catches the moment, all most people see is the spec sheet and the price. And unfortunately, that’s all Nikon marketing seems to know how to talk about.

  • groucher

    Entry class DSLR – won’t help Nikon’s fortunes. A high quality waterproof and ruggedised digital Nikonos based around the 1 inch chip and a gimmick-free (i.e. NOT fake retro) compact FF digital FM or rangefinder might help though.

  • nikonpro

    if nikon had made the fuji x100 pro, i’d have two of them

  • I AM THE NEXT KODAK

    2 pro bodies, 5 pro lenses announced on the same day. 2007 seems a lifetime away.
    What chance of Nikon doing anything like that now?
    Nope, we get coolpixes, a dumbed down D3200 (!!), lenses no one wants and the 1 line.
    Nikon need to re-hire the folk who ran the shop in the D3/D300 era.

    • fred

      Yes, a fantastic time for Nikon, the D300 + D700 sold like hot cakes, caught Canon with pants down for a while.

      I still use my D300 for wildlife photography.

      I’m waiting for some sort of announcement of a new D400 in the next 3 to 5 months….or I’ll be buying a D7100 next year. I don’t want a nobbled D600 and I can’t afford the great D800/E.

      If Nikon listened to their customers they could be making good money right now selling latest spec (and surely by now! – better QC + problem-free) D400′s!

  • RThomas

    Back in 1998, I worked in a camera store. A person could buy an entry-level 35mm SLR with a standard zoom lens for around $200 US, give or take a few dollars. This would be about $300 US now, in 2013. I expect to see a digital SLR at this price point sometime soon.

  • Thom Hogan

    This has been a pretty good discussion, one of the better ones we’ve had on NR.

    It seems clear to me that something has to change going forward, as the current 24 Coolpix, 5 colors of Nikon 1, every DSLR is 24mp or better except for our flagship era has to come to an end. My worry has been, and continues to be, that Nikon isn’t completely connecting with their key constituency, the serious enthusiast. Someone who takes photos rather than snapshots (not that there’s anything wrong with that, as JS would say ;~). Nikon makes some very good enthusiast cameras, but there’s discontinuity in the line, missing products, and simple things like remotes and GPS and WiFi modules are all over the board. I actually keep boxes of each of those items because there are so many variations now.

    It very well might be that only true camera market left in a few years is those folk, so you don’t want to lose them now. The essential questions are “where is the bottom of the CAMERA market, and how many variations do you need between that and the top?” Fujfilm is now claiming that the number for them is “10.” By my count, Nikon currently has inventory of 40, with more coming. In a contracted market, I don’t see how you can make that many variations and sell efficiently.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I agree, I usually hate to give my opinion on the blog, but this was a good discussion.

      • Smudger

        It helps when the contribuions from the fan boys and sychophants have nothing to say!

  • Can’t Believe It

    Honestly, I don’t really care about camera bodies anymore, I think we’re entering the era of the disposable body. I’ve used a variety and they don’t seem that different to me, for what I shoot—food, people, and the occasional event. If I were shooting professional sports, I’d feel different, but as long as the shutter and autofocus are accurate and it works with the magical CLS I’d rather buy a new $349 camera body every year than try to squeeze my investment out of the bodies that sell for $1,700 or $2,700 or $6,000.

  • decisivemoment

    OK, so here’s what I would do.

    First, push Nikon 1 hard, really explain to people what it does, and better integrate it with the rest of the Nikon system. Launch a V3 that goes back to the EN-EL15 battery and the capability to feed accessory flash from the camera battery but incorporates the ergonomic improvements of the V2, proper off-camera flash support through an SC-29-style adapter and CLS commander mode, and, of course, Aptina’s recently announced new sensor. Price the body at $599. Price the kit at $699. (Maybe $100 higher if both the camera hardware and marketing’s salesmanship are good enough.) Launch a complementary J series body at $200 down from those prices. And put in a serious marketing effort that actually distributes a wide variety of good quality sample prints and sample video, in stores and online. Also, explain what’s good about it, don’t just have Ashton Kutcher prancing around an ad designed by ADHD people, talking in vague terms about “speed.” You’ve got to educate people about what this actually means. Make sure every beginner out there knows how amazing the VR performance on the kit zooms is, for example. And, for the serious photographers out there, introduce a 13mm f1.2 wide angle and possibly also an 18mm f1.2 standard to complement the new portrait lens for the 1.

    In the DSLR department, I wonder where they can even get the margins at the low end. Right now, people in Europe and the US are being encouraged to upgrade from P&S to D3xxx/D5xxx systems, but honestly I think the 1 makes more sense at this level and in the long run will generate more satisfaction, and more future sales. If DX doesn’t lend itself to better wide-angle primes and zooms — there are certainly engineering challenges, including the very big distance from the Nikon mount to the film plane compared to other 135-based systems — then that’s another argument for the 1, isn’t it. If a 1 body generally smokes the D3200 or D5200 for speed and usability, then that ought to be communicated. And communicated it must be; the instinct of the typical European or American camera buyer, in the absence of proof such as prints and video, is to write off the 1 as a glorified and overpriced point-and-shoot, but then buy a D3xxx/D5xxx and then find they don’t use it very much and never buy another item for it. The reality is DX is closer to FX than the marketing department would like; in the end, it’s another big camera that requires care and skill to get the best out of. It doesn’t cover the photographer’s mistakes and inhibitions as well as 1 does.

    Instead, DX should be a high pixel density sports and nature format for serious photographers, a complement to FX systems in other words, and it begs the question of why Nikon has never properly replaced the D300. Either double the D7100′s frame buffer, add an AF-ON button and possibly boost the capture rate by a frame or two a second, or introduce a D400. Then, fill in the gaps in full-frame; introduce PC-E lenses that tilt and shift on independent axes, update some of the classic primes like the 24/2.8 and 35/2, get VR in the 300/4, introduce a decent small 400, properly support radio-slaving on flash. Solve some of the glitches, like the interference that viewfinder overhang causes to the PC-E lenses. Just generally tidy it up. And introduce a digital SLR that emphasizes compactness above all else, as close to an FM2 as possible. The stuff Thom Hogan has been saying for years, except with one important difference, in the big picture rationalizing down from CX, DX and FX to Nikon 1 and Nikon F.

    You’d end up with the 1-series for the mass market, an approach that done right boosts appeal to serious enthusiast photographers as well because of the 1′s speed and outstanding lenses, and an FX-centered F-mount system in which a press camera (the D4), a high-resolution camera (D800), a small-and-light camera (FM2-d), and an entry-level model (D600) form the basis of the lineup, and at least one high-pixel-density DX model (let’s call it the D7100s) remains both as a sports-and-nature complement and as a second entry-level option.

    If Nikon determines that they can’t sell the 1 in the US and Europe, then it gets more complicated; I just don’t see how you get the cheaper DSLRs up to that level of responsiveness and convenience and I certainly don’t see how you get DSLRs selling at the levels that compact cameras traditionally have. The 1 is their shot at getting high-end DSLR usability in a truly mass market product that can be justified in addition to a smartphone camera in a way that P&S cameras increasingly cannot.

    Now, i also tend to think that some of our criticisms of Nikon forget that these kinds of problems are not specific to Nikon but run across the camera industry, which doesn’t get the consumer as well as the consumer electronics industry does. But these debates are healthy because it would be a real shame, not to mention a crimp on photography in general, for the likes of Nikon to choke up on good products and strategies while allowing bad products and strategies to persist.

  • Leonard

    “Note that Nikon is not complaining about slow D4 or D800 sales – so why not concentrate on that segment of the market instead?”

    When the spokesperson is Ashton Kutcher…that should be a clear sign who they are focusincing on.

  • http://www.postlinearity.com gregorylent

    hoping to sell lenses?

  • http://www.postlinearity.com gregorylent

    wonder if nikon could make money in the higher end video market … canon c300 territory

  • 1j2

    Nikon does not need another entry level DSLR. Nikon needs to get away from this professional means big & heavy idea. The market is heading towards compact lightweight pro level cameras. To compete with X-Pro1 or OM-D they need a similar mirrorless camera or at least a compact lightweight pro level DSLR with a state of the art AF modul and some new lenses.

    • BroncoBro

      You need to reconsider your definition of “professional” camera. While the OM-D and X-Pro1 are nice cameras and some professionals use them for certain kinds of work, they are really not pro grade tools.

  • sMartin

    I’m an amateur who purchased a D5100 almost two years ago. In that period, I have matured and am now looking for two things:

    (1) I would like to upgrade my body. It’s beginning to bug me to have to go through the menu every time I want to change settings. I also want to be able to use older lenses, so an in-body motor has become important to me.

    When the D7100 came out, it had everything I wanted except for a shallow buffer. It’s just kind of strange that the D3200 can take 80 continuous shots, while the d7100 can only take 33. To me, it looks like it was intentionally handicapped. So I’ll wait until a future model gives me what I want.

    (2) I would like to buy a back up camera. I want something small so I can use it in places where dSLRs are unwelcome. I also want something that can use my dSLR lenses and focus competently.

    When the Nikon 1 came out, it was exactly what I was looking for. But the price was too outrageous. As an amateur, I cannot justify buying something that is more expensive than a dSLR when I won’t get dSLR performance from it.

    With so many models, I cannot understand why Nikon purposely handicaps their cameras through hardware, software, or price. Frankly, it annoys the living heck out of me.

    That’s not to say I won’t give Nikon my business anymore; I’m not that angry yet. In fact, I finally saved enough money for a 105mm Micro lens, which I will be getting soon.

    What I am saying, is that I could have been giving Nikon more money if they got their act together.

    Apart from camera bodies, I would love to get more DX lenses, if the ones I needed existed. I would love to get original extension tubes, if they worked with the auto focus. I would love to buy an original battery grip, if it existed for my model. I would love to buy a flash, but the SB-400 does not swivel sideways and the SB-700 costs an arm and a leg. I would love to buy filters and diopters and so on…

    At the end of the day, I am and amateur right now and have wants. As I improve, my needs will change. But Nikon is not covering any of them.

    • Dhaval Panchal

      D7100 + Samsung NX300?

  • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors
  • esolesek

    I’ve been waiting for a decent follow-up to the D40X for years, and would pay $1500 bucks for it, but Nikon apparently wants to put its crappiest feature set and most hobbled battery in its smallest most-convenient body profile. The video is a joke, and so is the image quality. Meanwhile quality control issues plague the full frame line, which I might also buy, if they weren’t swimming in salad oil.

    Nikon is clearly run by moronic business school grads who prefer to manipulate their market into non-existence, instead of actually making quality gear, and that’s too bad.

  • BroncoBro

    Time to just shoot the Nikon 1 in the head and move on to putting their efforts into DSLRs and a wifi/cellular camera with GPS that you can make voice calls with…..:-)

  • Back to top