< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon cut again their sales forecast for high-end cameras in Q2

nikon-logoToday Nikon published their financial results for the second quarter of the year ending March 2014 and they cut again their sales forecast for high-end cameras:

"As the camera market shrunk due to sluggish business condition, the 1st half sales volume decreased in all product groups year on year. Thus, sales and income reduced ¥28.5 billion and ¥10.9 billion, respectively. After the estimated market size is revised due to lower-than-expected market condition, the forecasts for sales and operating income are lowered by ¥30 billion and ¥6 billion, respectively." (source)

"Nikon Corp cut its full-year unit sales forecast for high-end cameras for the second quarter in a row on Thursday, as a dramatic fall in demand among photography hobbyists that began last year accelerated faster than expected. The company posted a 41 percent drop in operating profit to 21.9 billion yen ($222 million) for the six months ended September, saying overseas demand for pricy single-lens reflex models had remained depressed." (source)

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Guest

    Anyone hoping for another instant rebate lens program again? I noticed that Canon is running one on B&H. Got my fingers crossed, looking to pick up a 24-70.

    • Karl

      That is what I’m waiting for!!

      • fred

        Nikon should have one through the christmas period.

  • Jonathan Lin

    is nikon gonna go out of business?

    • Vikus

      Yes, after Sony and Canon.

    • Joop

      ASML will buy Nikon …

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      I seriously doubt that.

    • zoetmb

      If FY2015 continues the same downward trends, either there’s going to be a major change in management or Nikon will be sold. The Imaging division, which is the majority of Nikon, still earns the equivalent of $700 million, but in today’s world, that’s not really that much money. But having said that, Nikon isn’t closing up shop while still earning that amount. However, without growth, shareholders might dump all the stock, which could make the company subject to a takeover.

      Nikon’s got issues everywhere and we all have discussed what their problems are in the DSLR lineup, the Nikon 1 failures, the missing lenses, the overpriced and confusing DF, the poor customer service, etc. IMO, the last truly amazing thing that Nikon produced was the D70: the right camera at the right price at the right time that changed the marketplace.

      • robert

        D70-tunnel vision AHHH! it couldnt be shot past 640iso without heavy chroma noise and a waxy look because of the NR.

        I think the D300/D3 was what people oooed and ahhed over. the D3 was revolutionary with low noise and the D300 with its specs wowed everyone.

        the Sb800 was the flash that also stood out from the rest.

        • fred

          You are right the D3/D300/D700 bodies were like WOW! when they were released. The D300 rivalled the professional D2HS, image quality was that good. People like me still use their D300….people like me would buy a D400 instead of a D7100 if it was offered.
          SB-800 was amazing, relatively small and powerful even compared to the SB900.
          Prices should be lower, especially anything out of China. The Df may eventually be assembled in china, we shall see.

      • JJ

        Takeover by who? They are owned by Mitsubishi.

  • darkscorpion13

    I think Nikon is losing customers with increased competition from Fuji, Olympus and Sony.
    For example, since fashion is not everything, The Nikon Df will be competing against Sony’s new a7 and a7R, especially when you put in mind the price difference (and highly similiar features)

    • Jacques

      Nikon DF has nothing to compare with A7R, if i was Sonyst, i would pick the A7R…

    • neonspark

      A7s are different animals. the DF is geared towards pure photography. The A7 is just a D800 with less lens options.

    • Thom Hogan

      As I’ve written, there’s “leakage.” But it’s not significant in terms of actual numbers. Nikon still maintains about one-third of the interchangeable lens camera market. They’ve never been in the 40%’s, and they’ve never been in the 20%’s: they’ve bounced around in the 30’s for a decade now. Sony, meanwhile, has gone down in percentages and is the single digits.

      Those of us buying near the high-end of the market tend to see things differently: more competition now and more choices and potentially more leakage from Canon/Nikon. But I think we also over estimate how much movement there is.

      I’ll respond to the next post below this, too: the problem with the Sony A7r is I don’t know what lens I’d use with it. I don’t get a lot of choices that work in my wheelhouse. Meanwhile, with my D800 I go seamlessly from 14mm to 400mm, have tilt/shift, macro, and other options.

  • Kevin

    ugh. hopefully nikon will figure a way out of this. i love the nikon dslrs but they need a more “mainstream friendly” camera (like the RX100) to support their revenues.

  • guest 2

    Nikon has been making people dissatisfied by not standing behind their top end products like the D800 and D600 and then coming out with the D610 instead of fixing their issues. Have a D800, went to clean the sensor with a dry swab. Saw streaks after one pass. Took it to a repair place for cleaning. I was told the specks were grease from the shutter?

    • neonspark

      the specks were grease from your head. and you deserve it for cleaning the sensor in such ridiculous way.

  • DSCEO

    A lot of competition, form factor change, mobile cameras quality, and market saturation make this an easy situation to predict. I bought a D7100 but I bought all Sigma lenses because they were higher quality and I like the USB dock idea so I can adjust my lens parameters. Nikon needs to catch up their lens quality and drop the prices. Also the price difference between a crop and full frame is out of line.

  • Bruce

    Looks like Nikon has turned to the hipster photographer community to bail them out of money problems, instead of just fixing and updating their high-end equipment. But, I guess, why continue to compete with high-end, professional Canon equipment when you can instead just compete with Leica.

  • Skippy

    Nikon needs to take care of their customers better & stand behind their quality issues (D600 & D800). They also need to stay up to date on sensor technology (Sony). The interest in smaller & better cameras is the future not retro models which have such a small limited sales market. Let’s see some price drops please so you can start selling & making money!

    • neonspark

      uh, dropping price makes you less money. and when sony is selling a compact for 3K, what are YOU talking about billy?

  • arab_ninja

    Why don’t Nikon just make the products that their customers are screaming for, like the D400 or D700 replacement? It’ll definitely help their cause.

    • Jonathan

      +1000000000000000000

    • Dragontesticles

      Thats exactly the thing Nikon is avoiding……after u purchase the new D700…….. u r not buying another cam the next 12 years

      • koenshaku

        but they’d sell a heck of a lot of D700S models ^^

        • desmo

          not really ,
          these same whiners would find something to whine about
          and the D400 whiners would go ballistic,
          because the D700’s got theirs and they got left out

      • Cuculain

        Well that argument would count for all well built cameras. My D200 is in perfect working order and sometimes I take my F4 for a walk, that didn´t stop me to get the D300 and D700..If they add relevant value to a new model they will always have my money. I just doubt that marketing, videos and conciously crippeld and overpriced models will do the job…just my cent.

      • Bert the Photographer

        That would then save Nikon millions of dollars on R&D….
        So either what you say is rubbish, or R&D is still important and people will upgrade for better image IQ.

    • robert

      because they would hype it up like the DF. get everyone drooling over it. tease you with tons of video with an unshaved douche walking cluelessly speaking gibberish crap with a british accent…………………………………. then price it way too high.

      And the D700 is still a very relevant camera. sensor inside can shoot at iso 6400 (if you get your exposure, spot on) same as d3

      the DF is overpriced and underspeced and the 50 1.4 is way too expensive at $1800. no one should pay that much and get a plastic lens. that is the peak of nikons chutzpah of ripoff!

      • Cuculain

        Agree on everything you say! :-)
        Except, I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the videos a lot. And…british english i s english – everything else is accent ;-)

        • Max

          Yes indeed. It’s called the “English language”. The clue is in the title…

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            What the world you say?

      • fo demo

        Don’t you mean the 58 1.4?

        • robert

          I said 50mm cuz its making a point

    • Matt Carter

      Exactly right, I have a D300s and a D700 and have been waiting for a year and a half for the replacements that fit my niche. I need moderate speed and a step up in pixel count to accommodate commercial client requests while still capable of good sports shooting (and a D4 is out of my league cost wise and not enough pixels for some clients). My 700 with the grip and fast battery was/is great — just not enough pixels for certain people.

      I would by both. I was hopeful that the Df would fit the bill, put a faster shutter in it and make a grip available and it would be a good 700 replacement.

    • Thom Hogan

      By “high-end” I believe that Reuters is referring to “interchangeable lens” cameras, which Nikon revised the forecast for down slightly, by 200k units. Neither a D400 nor D700 “replacement” instead of the Df or D610 would likely have enough impact in the final four months of Nikon’s fiscal year to make up that softness in the numbers, especially since a D400 would take away from the D7100 and maybe from the FX line, as well.

      It’s a giant juggling game they’re playing, the quake/flood disrupted that some, and they have to not do everything at once lest they have a really great quarter followed by weaker and weaker ones. I for one am curious as to what the Jan/Feb announcement will be and what the pre-Photokina announcement will be. We should get something major and/or important announced in both windows, and the two together should tell us a lot about where Nikon is.

      • Andrew

        I also am curious what the next camera will be. Whatever it is I am certain it will play nice with the EXPEED 4 image processor.

        It appears to me that the justification for a D700 replacement has been further squeezed by the introduction of the Nikon Df. The $2,000 price range seems pretty crowded right now. As for the D400, sometimes I think that it will surly come out because of the large pricing gap between the D7100 and the D610, not to mention its heft. But then at other times I have the thought that there are many professionals that are using the D7100 as a backup camera and that it will not take much to upgrade the D7100 to the specs of theD400, but without the build quality.

        • Thom Hogan

          I can’t imagine we get a direct D700 replacement now. Indeed, the FX space is getting crowded and the next iterations there would likely be D4s and D4x for that reason. Anything else would tell us that Nikon is all-in on FX and send a very bad message to DX users.

          A D400 is inevitable. Nikon simply leaves too much money on the table by not doing one. While we’re all curious as to why the long delay on a cornerstone product, my hope is that all will eventually be answered.

          • broxibear

            The people who wanted or needed a D4 have bought one already (or stuck with their D3/D3s)…
            I don’t see any harm to sales, infact I think it would be the opposite, if the just put the current D4 sensor in a the D800 body, priced it the same as the D800E and called it the D800s…and at the same time launch the D4s ?
            A double “s” launch, the D800s and D4s.

            • Dpablo unfiltered

              Oh yeah. And the D300 people can also upgrade to the D700 for about the same as mentioned above…

          • Dpablo unfiltered

            I see a D600 for 13something right now.
            I see a D7100 for a little less.
            You can want your D400 but given what it would probably cost I’d rather have both of those…
            I think I’d be more “pro” with a combo like that.

            • Thom Hogan

              Maybe. Depends upon how you define “pro.” A true pro that relies on his/her camera for shooting every day in volume production needs a better shutter, better build quality, the full array of dedicated buttons/controls, and wants the camera to reach into any task they throw at it, including things like sports, where frame rate might make a difference.

          • Dweeb

            I’d like to know who’s telling them a D400 is un-necessary.

            • Sahaja

              Maybe they didn’t release a D400 because they were trying to get as many people as possible to move to FX. Perhaps they thought releasing D400 would have diluted that message.

          • Joel

            Thom, you don’t see them rolling the current D4 16MP into a D800 body just after the D4S is released? Seems such a move would be exactly what the community (if not just me) has been calling for and it wouldn’t be too complex from an engineering standpoint. I wouldnt think that a 16MP D800 variant would steal too many sales away from the 36MP as these would appear to be complementary rather than competing models.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, I don’t. It would just be another body in the US$2000-3000 range with the primary distinction being 8 fps instead of 5.5 fps. They already have a log jam that’s causing issues with people trying to pick between the bodies.

            • KnightPhoto

              Don’t forget Nikon already passed on that opportunity once already when the D4 came out.

              When the D4 came out the D3S sensor did NOT go into a D710 body (or I would’ve bought one).

              I know that was my dream too, but Nikon has now ignored three opportunities to update the D700 – 9 months after the D3 out came the D700, but then 9 months after the D3S was announced no D710, when the D4 came out no D3S sensor in a D3 body, and 9 months after the D4 no D710 came out. Mind you 18 months after the D4 we have the Df. Why don’t you get a D4?

            • Joel

              The reasons as I to why I haven’t bought a D4 are fairly simple. I cant justify the $6k spend for a full size body which shoots at 10fps when a) I want a half sized body and b) I dont need the full 10fps.

              I would however love to pick up the D4 sensor in a D800 package if Nikon were to somehow produce this for $3k. Until then, I’m stuck hiring old D3S’s when I need to shoot professionally above 3200 – something the D800 can struggle to do in contrasty environments.

            • KnightPhoto

              Aha. Obviously by the quality of your photos Joel, you know your way around a camera! Loved your high contrast examples, so I was curious why you have not bitten on the D4 earlier.

              Likewise I needed the D4 (or D3S) sensor, for theatre/concert in my case, didn’t necessarily need the 10fps or the large body. However I ordered the D4 because my sense was, given the mentioned instances where Nikon could have but chose not to release a D700S/D710 that we were not going to get a mini-D4. I recall emailing back and forth with Thom on this topic to help in the purchasing decision at the time which helped a lot.

              As you might guess it is not a hardship owning and shooting a D4, extremely versatile and I love it for portraits, great skin tones and WB. And yeah I have come up with uses for 10fps and the CX video mode is superb. Great camera and the sensor is really great to work with. Which is why I think they made a good choice in sensor for the Df. If you aren’t going to use it a lot, then maybe you really should consider the Df despite it’s non-mini-D4-ness ;-)

              Edited to add: … and on the size/weight issue the D4 is so well balanced and comfortable a camera to hold that it almost feels lighter than my D800E.

            • Joel

              Great points. I’m definitely leaning towards the purchase of a DF for those very reasons.

    • neonspark

      They did, it’s called the D610.

  • Mike D

    Nikon just introduced a new 58mm F1.4 lens and 50mm retro lens. Do we really need a dozen different 50mm-ish lenses. I just picked up my Sigma 18-35mm (27-52 equivalent) F1.8 lens a few hours ago.

    • Rui Nelson Carneiro

      If they had already satisfied their consumers, why not the 58mm f/1.4? But it isn’t the case.

      The 24-120 VR sucks.
      The 24-85 VR is too little
      The 24mm 2.8 AF-S isn’t happening

      Some lenses, like the 85mm 1.8, 70-200 f/4 VR, 50mm 1.8G were excellent choices, but there’s a lot of things to fix.

    • mist3rf0ur

      I’m looking at the Sigma 18-35 too (most likely I’ll get it come tax time).

      What Nikon should have made, IMO, if they were going to release a new fairly low-priced prime, is a 24mm 1.8 in a size close to the 50mm 1.8G.

    • neonspark

      if Nikon released such as lens to Nikon standards, you wouldn’t buy it as it would be too expensive, and then you’d whine about not having a 58 1.4 modern noct.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      I’ll tell you what I really steamed about. I have a pentax 110 camera and they haven’t made a lens for it in like … forty years. I mean, it’s still a perfect format. There’s camera phones with sensors that are smaller. Why OH WWHYYYY is Pentax turning it’s back on it’s loyal customers?????????

  • Corporate Slave

    There are two kinds of tech companies these days. The ones that focus on their position in the market they’re in and the ones who by releasing a new product create a new market. Nikon seems to be in the first bunch.

    Consumers are not buying because they don’t see the value in paying for the minor upgrades Nikon is serving them. Also, better quality control and treating consumers with respect would not hurt

    • TomTom

      The future is mirrorless. The new Df is a monster. I say no more.

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        Promises, promises…

    • neonspark

      LOL if you don’t want minor updates, don’t buy sony. that’s their specialy bud. Go ahead, buy their overpriced cameras which a half assed lens system and see how they will put you on an evolutionary treadmill of top dollar gear the way sony always does.

    • Andrew

      So you think going from the D3x to the D800 is a minor upgrade? This (D800) incredibly high megapixel camera moving from 24 MP (D3x) to 36 MP (D800) is a minor upgrade? Surprisingly high ISO performance for such a high megapixel camera is a minor upgrade? Indie quality video capability is a minor upgrade? Diminishing the $8,000 cost of the D3x to $3,000 for the D800 is a minor difference?

      Manufacturing problems that has plagued every major company including Sony, Canon, Intel, Apple, and HP is a Nikon only problem? I think Nikon’s biggest problem is their lack of adequate communication (public relations) with their customers to clearly explain issues and not their lack of commitment to their customers.

  • rokkiN

    Good thing they’ve thought this through and just released a new lens and camera that would appeal to everyone.

    Oh wait…

    • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

      Unfortunately, I think your comment sums up Nikons situation accurately.

      • FE10

        Haha! I can hear a shovel…Nikon digging their own grave… Have been totally left behind in the compact stakes too. I spoke to an underwater housing manufacturer who said they will not be bringing out any new Nikon compact housings in the future due to the demand from Sony RX100 and Canon G16.

        I always get sorrowful looks and empathy when I present my Nikon compact system on a dive boat to former Nikon users who have crossed over to either Sony or Canon compact systems. I have to explain that I for some reason really love the Nikon interface which is similar to my D300…blah blah. They do agree with me, but its all about IQ my friend.

        Sack the design team please and save money. I think most people agree Nikon has the best user interface of all the others, this doesn’t need to change, they could keep the design and user interface the same for the next 10 years and still bring out killer cameras by simply upgrading the specs adequately.

        Why go back 20 years in design and not introduce awesome specs with the DF. There was absolutely no demand for this camera. You can’t create a demand in this day without improving specs. They’ve wasted 5 years of our lives. Whoever buys this crap must be a Dumb F**k. This should have been a full frame D400.

        With every new new release its a case of..Surprise!! Surprise!!…oh…too late…

        • http://nanchatte.wordpress.com Graxxor Anandro Vidhelssen

          People will buy it. The fact is that the vast majority of people are not pushing their cameras to anywhere near their limits and I firmly believe that the cameraman is the ultimate limiting factor with most current cameras which have performance beyond anything a Pulitzer Prize winner from 1960 would have
          There is nothing wrong with the Df. I tried it this weekend in Tokyo. It’s compact, light and has a D4 sensor. What’s not to like? Moreover, it looks like a good camera should look. Sure it’s pricy, but the D4 sensor is still a remarkable piece of kit.

          So, while I understand what you are saying, there IS a case to be made for the Df, and while wealthy hipsters will be among the purchasers, here will be some serious, serious fotogs lining up for it, I’m sure.

  • Mantoinel

    I think Nikon isn’t doing much to help its situation. Compact cameras don’t sell well, yet they continue to put a lot of effort on it just to produce cheap cameras that don’t appeal the consumer more than smartphones.

    Meanwhile, the advance amateur/pro consumers dont have what they want.

    The DF sure would have been a huge seller if it wasn’t for its nonsense price. The D800, for $3000, offers full metal body, 36 mp, 51 points AF, flash, video, better metering, etc.

    We used to pay a lot of money for high megapixels camera, simply because they cost more to produce. Nikon is now trying to suck $2700 of our money for the hype of low megapixel and retro look? What the hell!

    All the “Pure Photography” campain made me hope for a simplistic, small full frame camera for a no Pure Bullshit price.

    Nikon, WAKE THE **** UP!

  • broxibear

    “overseas demand for pricy single-lens reflex models had remained depressed”

    Not exactly a surprise ?…the world economy has been flatlining since 2008, the only reason there hasn’t been a total collapse is due to “quantitative easing” and a collapse is expected in early 2014.
    Photographers, whether professional or amateur are not immune to all this. 10 years ago many of the photographers I know would be upgrading every couple of years, now they’re hanging onto equipment for far longer.
    As far as Nikon users go the D3 to D3s to D4 wasn’t much of a change (video aside).
    Yes some working photographer can afford to upgrade as soon as newer equipment comes out, but far more can’t.
    If Nikon aren’t making much on compacts and it’s a market being taken over by mobile phones, if they can’t make money on high end dslrs, they don’t seem to have made much progress in the mirrorless segment…where exactly are they going to make money ?

    • zoetmb

      Nikon’s excuse is b.s. and here’s why: If the only issue was the economy, units would be down, but marketshare would remain steady (or even increase). But Nikon’s marketshare is slipping. At the end of fiscal 2009 (3/2009), Nikon had a 37.5% DSLR marketshare. 2010, it dropped to 33.7%. 2011: 30.3%. 2012: 29%. 2013: rose to 36.3%. 2014 1st half: 33% and Full Year projection: 33.2% but I bet they drop their projection again before the fiscal year is out.

      What this fiscal year’s revised downward forecasts say to me is that between now and the end of the fiscal (3/2014), there are no more new DSLR bodies coming. That means no D400.

      If I were Nikon, I’d bite the bullet and heavily discount all the old models for the holidays and January: the D5200, the remaining D600 kits, D5100, D7000, D3100 and the D300s (even though there’s no real replacement). Either that, or send them all to the landfill, like Apple did to their massive old lineup when Steve Jobs returned to the company. That will hurt them this year, but it will clear out all the old junk. To partially make up for it, they can heavily market 2nd lenses to these buyers. At least they’d get a new crop of Nikon users who they can sell upgrades to it future years and it would simplify the product line.

      The should do the same for the Nikon 1 J2, J1 and V1.

      • NoMeJodas

        I wished Apple would acquire Nikon and enter DSLR business. They would clean up the whole product line and offer clear and well thought out new products that perfectly work together and are of course top of the market. Just take a look at this well-conceived line-up:

        http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/

        How about D7100/D610/D800 successors that share exactly the same high-end body, the same high-end features without any crippling, accept the same accessories and are only differentiated by the sensor and features related to usage purposes best suited to that type of sensor?. Apple wouldn’t care which one will cannibalize the sales of the others and most people will buy at least two of those beauties anyway!

        • rhlpetrus

          Sorry, computers are everyone’s tools, as are smartphones these days. Camera, especially ILCs, are a very small market. Difference in sales is 2 orders of magnitude, 10 million to 1 billion. I hope Apple doesn’t get into the camera business and concentratae in making good computers and phones …

          • NoMeJodas

            Apple already makes one of the most selling picture capturing devices in the world. So I don’t think they are interested in Nikon anyway.

            The point is, Nikon needs a radical change like the one Apple had gone throw upon Steve Job’s return IMO. And one of the key reasons to Apple’s success was the complete restructuring and simplifying of their product lines.

  • Michael Laing

    I think Nikon really hasn’t been helping it self over the last couple of years. The first problem is their inability to admit when there is a problem, which there has obviously been over the last couple of years. Particularly though not exclusively with the D600.

    Nikon’s customer service also seems to be an issue, I am regularly reading about Nikon owners who are having problems getting their camera’s repaired within warranty.

    Also it feels much of the time that Nikon are not trying to build be best cameras they can, with obvious limitations. The Df is a prime example. As an example, the Df has a frame rate of 5.5fps, which is slower than the D7100, which has a higher pixel count.

    Many have been clamouring for a direct D300 and D700 replacements and Nikon has noticably not followed down these markets, with the D7000/D7100 not having the build quality that many wanted with the D400. The D800, whilst being a great camera is not seen by many to be a replacement for the D700 and the D600/610 definitely doesn’t fit the bill, even though it has a great sensor. So many people are keeping hold of their older DSLR’s.

    The final issue seems to be that Nikon are not making many great breakthoughs in photography now. So people are not feeling the need to upgrade their DSLR. The D4 feels more like an evolution of the D3s, where as the D3s felt like being a much bigger step. The Df is pretty much just a mash up of other Nikon DSLR’s with a nice top dial. The D7100, just a slight upgrade from the D7000, with a 24mp sensor instead of 16mp and a newer processor. Nikon has become very stale when it comes to new ideas. I look at my old D300 and whilst it doesn’t have video and the low light ability isn’t great in comparison to modern DSLR’s, it still does most of what I want and need it to do and I don’t feel the need to update to a different second camera. Nikon has gone down the big sensor and megapixels route but most people don’t need a lot of mega pixels and people are beginning to wise up to the fact. The best thing I can say that Nikon has done in the last few years from a photographic standpoint in my view is to improve their low light ability, which is now quite astounding but other manufacturers are almost as good.

    The reduction of sales was always going to happen, with the changing of technology and market trends but Nikon have a lot of areas where they can improve in my opinion. They are not terrible but they could do better.

    • Guest

      Agree. They’re already in a sh*t hole, but yet they keep shooting their own foot by rolling out problematic products. On the service side, they kept treating their customers like dirt and driving their existing loyal customers to their competitors. I myself was rejected for warranty repair several times.

    • Andrew

      I think we all agree that Nikon could do better, but my take is slightly different. I would say that the D600 was a distraction for them and could have contributed to their bottom line if it did not experience early manufacturing issues. But my view is that the D4, D800, and D610 are all top-notch cameras that live up to the Nikon heritage. Nikon has an impressive marketing department and an awfully poor public relations department. But their revenue and profit have in no small measure been impacted by the Japan Tsunami and Thailand flood. These major natural disasters coupled with the lingering effects of the global financial problems have affected them quite adversely.

      As a corporation, Nikon had to plan for the future, take risks, and make major bets which every large corporation must do to ensure their survival and future prosperity. In that regard, Nikon introduced the Nikon 1 mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras. This series involved major research and development effort and also funding, and in addition to that, more recently they released the well liked Nikon 1 AW1 underwater camera and the highly anticipated Nikon Df full frame camera sporting the D4 sensor. Plus Nikon has started working with smartphone manufactures to license their technology. All of these product developments are taking place at Nikon, a company that is a fraction of the size of Canon and Sony!

      Now with the Introduction of the D5300 which incorporates the new EXPEED 4 image sensor, Nikon just released its first DSLR camera to process videos at 1080p @ 60 fps (frames per second). The EXPEED 4 is approximately 50% faster than the EXPEED 3 thus enabling Nikon’s next generation of products to have greater performance (faster frame rate) and image quality (IQ) which professional photographers and prosumers are longing for.

      Sure Nikon could do better. The D7000 and D7100 have been well received by both enthusiasts and professionals who want a capable backup camera. But some professionals have purchased it grudgingly as a compromise to the non-existent D400 with the main complaint that the D7100 does not have a large enough buffer.

      The issue of the D700 is more debatable. With the pricing of the D610, Df, and D800 being between $2,000 and $3,000, these cameras should be well within the budget of those looking for a D700 replacement. And I suspect that over 90% those who purchased the D700 will be please with one of the above three cameras as being a suitable replacement. And finally, we should not overlook the fact that many photographers wanted the D3x which Nikon was selling at the stratospheric price of $8,000, and now they can buy arguably its replacement (the D800) for only $3,000. This trend continues with the Df. Many who wanted the D4 whose cost of $6,000 is beyond the reach of many are now able to buy the Df for over 50% less at only $2,750. So if low light (high ISO) photography is your thing and you do not care much for high megapixels, then this is the ideal camera for you.

      Photography is a personal thing, and I have heard people argue that the D800 is of absolutely no worth to them and claim that it is a memory while others argue about its crop capability and yet another person may be a landscape or wedding photographer who considers it as the ideal photographic tool for their craft. So who do we believe? In my opinion they are all correct; and therein lies the paradox of personal choice!

      So I think Nikon will adapt and will flourish regardless of the ebbs and flows of the business cycle. I am certain that this is not the first time in their over 100 years in business where they have faced head winds.

      • Michael Laing

        I think in certain areas you have a point. I agree about the problems in Japan and Thailand creating issues with the company but I think the issues are much deeper than that. The D600 is the perfect example. Technically the camera is good but I have issues with them seemingly limiting the camera to 1/4000 max shutter speed and a flash sync speed of 1/200 because the D7000 below the camera beats it in both areas and costs a lot less. Yes, it can be said about the full frame sensor but it feels like Nikon are purposely limiting the camera so not to compete with the D800, even though the camera’s are two very different beasts, even if Nikon did have the same shutter and flash sync speeds.

        The D600 sensor having oil and dust problems is also a major issue, which goes back to the initial design process and then stretches through to the testing of the camera before it’s release and even worse the way Nikon has reacted since its release, which has been a complete joke.

        Also I am not really sure about Nikon innovations. Most Nikon sensors are made by Sony and this is the area where Nikon has made the most advances. Now I don’t know if it was Nikon or Sony who has designed the sensor, Nikon has done a good job in putting the sensor into the camera (better than Sony) but can Nikon be said to be very innovative in its DSLR’s over the last few years. The have had to play catch up with video and have only really just achieved it with the Expeed 3 processor. The Expeed 4 could be very good for 1080p 60fps and hopefully moire will become a thing of the past finally with Nikon DSLR’s in video. But in other areas Nikon hasn’t been as active. Nikon is still using the good but old 51pt AF system in its top end camera. Yes, it’s 39pt AF is good and has become pretty standard for middle of the road Nikon DSLR’s but there are issues, particularly putting it into a full frame DSLR and having all its AF points very centred.

        As for the 1 series, I think it was a catalogue of mistakes. The camera isn’t bad and the AF system is generally very good and fast (though let down in low light). The sensor size was a big issue, especially when you are offering it as a low end camera (J1) where the perception is that MP is key (even though this isn’t true for most people). Nikon made the massive mistake of not having a traditional flash bracket which was in my way of thinking completely ridiculous, especially with the V1, which could have got experienced DSLR owners on board I bought the P7100 instead of the V1 because I prefered the ergonomics and the fact I could use my flashes (it was a mistake as I hate the slow slow speed of the P7100) but Nikon didn’t help themselves with the 1 series, even though it could have been very good.

        As for the Nikon 1 AW1 I can’t really comment as I haven’t kept up with the camera.

        I think Nikon really are a little lost at the moment, which they weren’t before the two disasters and they truly haven’t returned back to where they were before that time.

        But Nikon really needs to change majorly in some areas and I doubt many people outside of Nikon will disagee. If I was working for Nikon I would say that they need to be more open, which is very much against the way that Nikon operates but in a world market, Nikon needs to adjust. Nikon needs to get its quality control into gear, also Nikon’s post customer service seems to be slipping and they can do better.

        Nikon camera’s are not bad but no manufacturers cameras are bad now days and Nikon have to realise this. The Df is good, but it isn’t great and to make matters worse it is way over priced. It isn’t as many people have said a mini D4 for half the price, it is more a D610 with a D4 sensor (the 24mp sensor is an exceptional in most areas better than the D4 sensor and the low light, almost as good at the 16mp D4 sensor, so why put the 16mp sensor in? My guess was to differentiate the Df from the D610).

        I want Nikon products to be great but I am not such a Nikon fanboy to love every Nikon product. In the end it is money that Nikon listens to and whether the Df becomes a success or not will be down to how much it sells. The D800 was massively successful when released (despite its problems and issues receiving the camera). So I am not surprised the Df isn’t as big a seller as the D800. Also I think the D610 is a better camera generally than the Df, so I don’t think it will be as successful as Nikon hope it will be. If anything I hope Nikon keep the top plate design, cause I think that is a good idea but really it needs to be done much better.

        • Pippo

          FX lineup & marketing strategies is very good. First, we get D4 and D800 – more professional and expensive cameras. These cameras sells good. Later – D600(610). People interested this less $$$$ camera due to good response from byers. And now stylish Df. Ok, Df missed specs for that price, but after half a year maybe rabates and sells well. Why Nikon don’t made DX flagman before D7100 and D5300? These cameras sells screamy and reason is – where is my D400. If Nikon do all reverse – D400 first and its sells be very good (I dont know why he needs 7X00 line or put the best in this camera), but after that, D5300 and D3300 be sells very well too, (as D600 in FF line). Same scenario flawlessy worked with D3-D300-D5000-D3000 years ago. As idea 1 is ok, sensor is too small. Put here APS-C and all be awsome. P7X00 is not needed – only reason is response to Canon G series. Make P3X0 with CX sensor, light lens and take money. Some cheap P&S camera is reason to manufactured simple by word Nikon.

          • Michael Laing

            The D800 has done well for Nikon but the D4 is more of an evolution than revolution and in many ways the Canon 1DX has over taken the D4, in terms of absolute specs and ability. Particularly the new Canon 61pt AF, which is now better than the much older Nikon 51pt AF. The 1DX, also shoots faster as well which makes a difference in the market area, where these cameras are marketed.

            Th true heir to the D700 to my eye has been the 5Dmk3. Nikon have pretty much switched around with Canon which I would say is more the heir to the 5Dmk2. The thing is Nikon owners want the D700 and they don’t have that option.

            The D600 I always felt was under specced but it was is a good camera, when it doesn’t have dust and oil issues, which has ruined Nikons reputation so much.

            The D7100 has for me always been the heir to the D70/70s/D80/D90 crown, though they seemed to try and position the D7000/D7100 inbetween those camera and the D300/D300s. The D7100 is everything the D400 but without the magnesium body. I personally think it is a very good camera.

            The D5300/5200 are good cameras and slightly better in my opinion than the Canon equivilent, though I prefer the Pentax K-30/K-50/K-500 because generally the camera is better specced and the K30 now it is discontinued is an amazing price.

            I understand Nikons idea for the 1 series, create a small light and very fast mirrorless camera and in that they succeeded but the Panasonic and Olympus already do a very good set of cameras which are smaller and lighter and Nikon alliterated me, with the annoying flash system.

            The P7X00 series is plagued by its slow speed. If it wasn’t for that it would be a great little camera. Personally I put the P7100 as my biggest mistake when buying Nikon equipment.

        • desmo

          The D800 was a huge success because it was a game changer (36MP and good low light as well),
          it’s focus issue was not known in the beginning, thus it had little or no affect on sales.
          The D600 oil issue is much bigger on the internet than it is to D600 owners(you can go blind trying to find it and very few people take pictures of the sky at f22) also unlike your assertion Nikon was responsive and replaced the shutter and cleaned the sensor on my D600 promptly ,politely and to my satisfaction.
          I’ve found little to fault with the camera and the image quality (especially low light,high ISO) is outstanding.
          The Df is not a full time mainstream DSLR,
          it’s a niche market camera that does what it’s intended ,shoot single frame pic’s wit film like quality(D4 sensor) and controls quite well.

          • Michael Laing

            The D800 might be a game changer but it is a game changer with issues. A lot of D600 owners have had oil and dust issues and still have oil and dust issues. Are you saying that Nikon has been good in the way that they have handled the D600 problem? As I said below the D600 is quite a good camera when it doesn’t have the oil and dust problems.

            Saying the Df is a niche camera really doesn’t cut it for me. Nikon wanted this camera to sell and sell big but they have misjudged what many want in the market because Nikon already has the D600/D610, which has a great 24mp sensor which isn’t that far behind in low light ability and is better in other areas. Now I know that with much older Nikon lenses you probably don’t need 24mp and I am not really complaining about the sensor, infact I have generally been complimentary about it but then to charge so much for what is basically a D610 in most areas is absurd.

            Nikon has just gotten greedy and thought they could fleece as much money out of Nikon fans as possible. At that price the Df has no soul.

      • ronin

        I agree that Nikon would have sold more D600s if they had sold more D600s. If it’s not their fault they didn’t or couldn’t sell more, whose is it?

        As for floods and tidal waves: Production outage due to natural conditions is a part of life manufacturers need to deal with every day. You mitigate the risk by purchasing insurance, moving plants away from known geographical risk areas, and spreading production across multiple separated plants. This is something businesses have to do every day.

        Nikon apparently didn’t do this. I’m sure that saved them a lot of money on sunny days. But because they didn’t plan for contingencies, it bit them. That’s the risk they took. If not their fault, whose is it?

      • desmo

        well said
        and covers the point pretty thoroughly

      • tertius_decimus

        > All of these product developments are taking place at Nikon, a company that is a fraction of the size of Canon and Sony!

        U-m-m-m… Being a part of Mitsubishi Corp. Nikon is much bigger than them both.

        • Sahaja

          I don’t think Nikon is actually part of the Mitsubishi Corp. – though they are affiliated with it

    • Thom Hogan

      A lot of Nikon’s problem with its customers is the lack of communication.

      The silence on real QA problems and attempt to wash one of them under the rug by “updating” the camera is terrible for a global company. You might be able to get away with that in Japan because everyone recognizes the cultural implications of admitting problems, but for a global company in the Internet age, it’s just going to create a giant friction that will hurt sales and customer confidence.

      The seemingly random announcements (Nikon 1, Coolpix A, Df, etc.) amongst a lukewarm continuation of the usual iteration (consumer DX specifically), sends mixed signals, as did the sudden large emphasis on FX. I’ll repeat something I write a lot: these are “systems” Nikon is trying to sell. Understanding how the systems will evolve and how they relate is the most important customer communication you can make. Nikon is failing at that. DX users are paranoid. FX users are scratching their heads at the randomness of the products. CX users wonder where that’s going and why it’s more expensive than DX.

      • Andrew

        I think the question one can ask is what is the perfect specification? Is it Megapixel, Frame Rate, ISO, Focus Points, Shutter Speed, Size. Build Quality, 1080p @ 60 fps video, and/or what else? The different models shows that there are so many design and features choices that the right trade-off may be hard to achieve. Should or can Nikon take an approach that is similar to Apple’s iPhone strategy where nearly one size fits all? Maybe Nikon is having a hard time answering that question or maybe it is not an easy question to answer.

        Looking at all of the different models, there is an inherent longing for us to have our camera custom built for us, maybe that is the only way we can be satisfied. Maybe we should go back to the days (loaning another person’s argument) where we had a single focus point, an age where we did not have many of the modern conveniences. Maybe Nikon’s answer to that dilemma is the Nikon Df.

        • Thom Hogan

          Good point. The Japanese consumer electronics industry has tended to be one of model proliferation. Apple tends to be highly focused on rationalizing their product lineup, with no direct duplication or overlap allowed for long.

          As I’ve tried to point out, we’re at Last Camera Syndrome. Someone paying US$1000+ for a camera these days tends to want it to last them a long, long time. The obvious gains from iteration (megapixel count increases, for example) are all disappearing to the point that most can’t detect them. The number of features already in DSLRs exceeds what most people would actually use.

          For DX, 24mp is enough, I think. For FX, I can’t imagine more than 54mp giving you anything truly worth paying more for, and I think some would say that 36mp is more than enough. So one of the engines of DSLR iteration is mostly out of steam. As I’ve written, I think you have to rethink the camera and disrupt outside the “more and faster” realm.

          • Spy Black

            “For DX, 24mp is enough, I think.”

            …”640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
            :-)

            Never say never. I read somewhere a while back of some forthcoming sensor tech that will drop the S/N ratio to depths allowing for astronomical ISO levels, which of course would also allow for sensor resolutions of similar astronomical proportions.

            Of course you have to wonder: Why even bother? I think it’s probably safe to say that 36 megs has exceeded most, if not all, present-day optical resolutions. So other than bragging rights and marketing ammo, unless optical designs go through a quantum leap (possible), where will greater resolution get us?

            • Thom Hogan

              Well I never said 640K was enough, Bill Gates did. And when he said it, I said he was wrong. So I’ll stick with my own projections, thank you, not Bill’s.

              Here’s the way I look at it: if I had the choice as a camera maker to make a 36mp DX camera with Bayer or a 16mp DX camera with a three-layer photosite, all else equal, I’d choose the latter every time. Most people are not only not going to see the difference between 24 and 36mp, but even those that work at those levels will have a hard time extracting a meaningful difference. Meanwhile, a 16mp three-layer sensor would show very visible higher acuity.

              I don’t claim that we won’t have better APS/DX sized cameras in the future, I dispute whether blindly adding megapixels gives you any real meaningful boost. This is very analogous to CPU clock speeds. Past a certain point (pick your speed, but I’ve never seen any meaningful boost for most of my work on a single core above 2.8Ghz) other strategies are betting than just pushing that one number forward. Indeed, multiple cores and pushing some math out to the GPU has proven to be a better strategy for creating a meaningful difference than just pushing clock speeds forward.

            • Spy Black

              I was merely comparing your comment to Bill’s. ;-)

              Considering DX cameras are now at the 24 meg stage, your 16meg concept is already passé. Marketing trumps common sense every time.

              It’s ironic that Nikon had brought the megapixel wars to a grinding halt with the D3, only to kickstart it right back up with the D800.

            • KnightPhoto

              I’m always interested in low light e.g. by your earlier comment about higher ISO capability. I’ll buy any one-stop better camera anywhere anytime. One stop is huge if you are a low-light shooter.

              However, since modern Nikon FX and DX cameras are already gathering > 50% of the photons, there is only less than one-stop of further photons to gather.

              So it seems that we are already good enough or nearly so, on both megapixels and on light gathering. This is a significant argument for buying and using a current generation camera, since we are already getting nearly as good as it is going to get on these two fronts with the current generation and the next generation is only going to be incremental. At least with the bayer sensors. Thom is already talking post-bayer as a result…

            • Spy Black

              I was also referring to technologies not presently available in my low-light statement. It’s not clear how soon this technology can come to commercial production, but it’s design allows for easy mass-production. Have a look: http://tinyurl.com/ko8rgt4

            • KnightPhoto

              Thanks, I’m game for better low light.

            • Sahaja

              If you shoot monochrome you can probably gain that much by removing the Bayer filter array.

            • Thom Hogan

              Right, and my MacPro is 2.66Ghz because everyone knows that you need a 4GHz clock speed.

              If all you market is a number, then that’s all that people pay attention to. It’s lazy marketing, IMHO.

            • Spy Black

              Unfortunately that’s exactly where it’s at.

            • Sahaja

              Sure they could make FX sensors with a 100 megapixels – but we’d probably need to buy lenses like the Zeiss Otus to begin to get any real advantage from that.

      • Michael Laing

        I have to completely agree.

  • NikonGiraffe

    Well, they would get my money with a D400, to update my old reliable D200, if the body price was kept around $2,000. I was intrigued by the Df, but not at the price. If it was priced at or near the D610, I probably would have bought one, and given up on DX. However, at the same price as the D800, why wouldn’t I just buy that, for the most flexibility and best image quality? The Nikon lineup makes no sense whatsoever. I also own an OMD with a couple of primes for nice travel snaps. While the focus can be a little lazy, the image quality is suprisingly good. I could sell off my Nikon gear (D200 body, five lenses, most of which are “gold ring,” and SB800) and with the proceeds get another Oly prime, the new f2.8 zoom, and the top flash and still have money left in my pocket. Or, I could dip my toe in the Sony pool, particularly with the A7r — my Nikon gear would net me at least the A7r body, and the nearly $3,000 for the Df would buy some pretty nice glass.
    Nikon’s problem is that their lineup is arranged and priced such that a relatively long-time Nikon user with a fair amount of money sunk into the system, is seriously thinking about switching platforms. They don’t offer exactly what I’m looking for; and the “compromise” alternatives cost so much, that financially it makes more sense to get less compromised competitors for less.

    • hojomo

      I couldn’t agree more. Another long-time user of Nikon. I’ve talked to other photographers, you end up having relationship-like feelings about breaking up…I have to laugh at myself. But truly, I love a good camera, the tools you use to make images that you love become very important things. I learned photography with the F series, Nikon was always the ‘real’ photographer’s choice back then, and they have such a stellar — and deserved — reputation in the history of photography.

      I later went on to use and love their LF and MF lenses, and came into the digital world in a serious way (for me) with the D7000 and now a D800E. I love the D800E, it makes wonderful images, good quality video; but I have a strong feeling that it’s my last Nikon purchase.

      I actually got a Nikon 1 V2 kit on the used market for a great price (would never pay new price), intended as a carry always/hiking system. It has many, many positives, and remains compelling for me for it’s decent video AF and 4k RAW burst mode; but I am overall regretting the purchase. We are not seeing a V3 or any sign that Nikon is going to warm up to the idea of competing for DSLR (MILC in this case) video shooters.

      Also, the ridiculous feature limitations (no bracketing, crap manual focus control, many more), lack of proper ergonomics/advanced use of the V2 along with crap high ISO (cx sensor will prevent any great ISO perf, but hopefully Aptina’s next offering improves this sore spot). Point being, seeing Nikon fail to offer a compelling reason to give them my compact ILC money deepens the sadness.

      Anyways, now that Sony has the A7(r), and RX-10; I am really tempted to jump ship next year. I’ll continue to have the D800E/lenses w/ adequate AF for what I might need; and enjoy more of the feature set I am looking for in Sonyland. With my great Nikkor glass, or some great old Mamiya glass, or Minolta, Pentax, etc. etc.

      It will have limitations like any other system, but much more compelling to me. The Olympus EM-1 series looks very tempting as well, only huge sore spot is crap video codec. Olympus makes some fantastic lenses and with the IBIS cries out for video shooting.

      Does Olympus and Nikon just have a no-compete agreement with Sony on video features?

  • MB

    Actually Nikon is doing pretty well all circumstances considered …

    • Pete Grady

      Not really. In business, declining ANYTHING is not viewed well by investors. They want increased earning per share. You need to remember that in Kimura-san’s world, it’s profit first, then cool cameras.

  • Captain Megaton

    Nikon’s .pdf document is instructive: sales of interchangeable lens cameras, lenses, and compact cameras were all well down year-on-year, but the compact camera segment really tanked, dropping 30%.

    Sure, the dSLR market is saturated and the growth areas – mirrorless – is something Nikon can’t easily grab a part of because of its legacy investment in F-mount.

    I can’t help feel, however, that there is an unusual softness in Nikon’s dSLR lineup between the D5200 on one hand and the D800 on the other, and companies like Pentax (K-3), Sony (a7), Olympus (E-M1), and even Panasonic (GX-7), are doing real damage to Nikon’s marketshare.

    D610,D7100 are not terrible cameras. They are just not particularly compelling ones. At this juncture I’d even go so far to suggest that even Canon (6D, 7D, 70D) have the better line up.

    • fred

      Nikon could call a new mount the N-Mount.
      N for Nikon or N for New.
      Marketing guys would go for 2nd one.

  • nikon_D600

    Nikon must be in trouble because they seem to be ignoring what their customers want. D300 and D700 successors and not some kind of Frankenstein DF camera.

    • zoetmb

      The problem is that when it comes down to it, customers don’t really know what they want. Ask customers what they want and there would have been no Sony Walkman, no Apple iPhone and no Apple iPad, three of the most successful products of all time.

      Customers claimed they wanted the Df. While I agree that price is a big issue, it’s still pretty much what customers on this site have been screaming for for the last several years (aside from the price and in spite of its problems).

      The other issue is that when “customers” criticize Nikon and scream for what they think they want, those aren’t necessarily customers with money in their pockets – they’re frequently just people with big mouths who like to post criticisms.

      Now having said all that:
      – I think there should have been a D400.
      – I agree that the Df is a Frankenstein camera – I posted that myself the other other day. I’d rather see Nikon do the equivalent of the Sony A7/A7r, but F-mount (obviously) and with a new line of physically smaller and lighter F-mount lenses. I think the future for enthusiasts (as opposed to pros) is going to be these smaller, lighter, full-frame cameras, just as in the 1970s, Olympus’ release of the OM-1 made Nikon seem way behind the times. (But obviously that’s just my opinion. No market research to back that up, other than the interest the Sony has seemed to garner.)
      – I also agree that Nikon hasn’t been releasing the right lenses. – Almost across the board, I think Nikon has gotten too expensive and there have been too many lens price increases in spite of the fact that the USD is worth 24% more against the Yen than it was in 3/2012 (although still 18.2% lower than 2007. By rights, Nikon should have lowered prices 24% from their 3/2012 levels.
      – And as others have posted, Nikon treats their customers like crap. But since changing this will cost them money, they’re not going to change it in a bad year.
      – At the recent NYC Photo Expo, both Canon and Sony had a repair facility on-site at the show. Nikon didn’t. I don’t think it was gratis, but nonetheless, it still demonstrated how important they thought repair service was to their customers. Nikon has to get their act together.
      – While I think my D800 is great (aside from the price), for the first time since I got back into photography in 2002, I’ve started to consider leaving Nikon. When the next iteration of the Sony A7/A7r is released, if Sony’s got enough lenses out and they reduce prices a bit, I’m going to seriously consider buying that camera. If I can achieve the same quality with a smaller, lighter load, I’d be very happy. The Df is still too heavy (although the size might be okay).

      • Robert

        You probably want to make sure that Sony has some good lenses available before you consider going in that direction. They do not have a good track reckord for that so far. Nikon, Canon or Fuji are better alternatives IMHO.

        • Robert

          track record

    • neonspark

      nobody wants a D300 successor. everybody moved to full frame. And there is nothing the D610 does that the D700 matches, so a successor is pointless.

      • Spy Black

        I’m surprised you didn’t get beat up for that LOL!

  • robert

    It was inevitable. the df and 58mm 1.4 lenses were not the reason to affect this but everything else is.

    flashes-overpriced
    grips-way overpriced
    lenses-WAY overpriced
    cameras-meh prices on them are ok, not exactly low, but not too high. the d4 needs to come down. the 3ds as well.

    I said it all along. and you know what, the next quarter will be a loss again, but not so bad (christmas)

    they are out of touch at nikon. managerial staff needs to be fired.
    putting out inferior products time after time. plastic body for $1800 50 1.4 lens. cut specs on $3000 camera. QC issues like crazy. customers feeling betrayed from the D610 and SB 910 upgrades.

    this is not the way to run a business. in the next few days we will see heavy sales imo.

  • robert

    I knew it and said it and I couldnt be happier! time to wake up nikon.
    you are sniffing to much of that nano powder.

    people were hooked on the DF. hundreds of posts here day after day all psyched for it. some wanted this and some wanted that. but overall, im certain many would have bought. then those morons released the price and the whole positive attitude turned to negative. they would have priced it $2000 and it would have sold like crazy.

    nikon-you are greedy as fuck. I wish you continued failure so you wake from your coma.

  • meatpants

    Sales are sluggish for at least 2 (If not many more) reasons:
    1) there is nothing new under the sun… nothing revolutionary, only rehashed products from Canon and Nikon. Sony at least went for it with the A7/A7r, but there is no native lens line up to accompany their camera. why should anyone dump their 5DII, or D800? they are both stellar cameras, and nothing has come along to unseat them (5Dii came out in 2008).
    2) Guys like me who sold off their other gear in anticipation of the A7/DF/X PRO 2 announcements aren’t buying anything yet because we’re really not sure of where to go (at this point i am leaning A7, but if DF sales tank and they lower the price $500, it might change my mind.) A7 sales are through the roof, it’ll be interesting to see production model reviews.
    It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. For now, I will sit on my cash, and push the limits with my NEX6.

    • robert

      youre thinking specifics here. the is a wider view thats the problem than just a camera. why all those tons of people here who wanted the DF arent buying? prices, and that has to do with everything they sell.

      in this shitty economy people are thinking twice before buying. people want worth and value for their VERY hard earned money.

      there no need to buy a camera every few years anymore. the d700 is still relevant and a very capable camera. a d7000 is still a very good good camera.

      like pc’s, people hold on to their computers for much longer today because the tasks they use them for havent changed much. internet, some picture editing, music, playing a movie. still the same and the pc’s are very powerful for those needs. sales on pc’s are also down because of tablets and laptops as well.

      all in all, nikon doesnt give worth/value for the prices they charge. they are out of touch with the price tag.

      today, you dont need to pay $250 for a grip. a $30 aftermarket does such a fantastic job and I myself could not see any difference between nikons and the aftermarket one on an MB-D10. nothing.

      no need to pay $550 for a flagship flash. phottix mitros($300 2yr warranty) and yongnuo 568 give fantastic value for the money. this is a shitty economy. and nikon are out of touch

      watch the nikon sales start within a few days.

    • rhlpetrus

      Care to share where the A7 sales “are through the roof”? At Amazon new releases, the Df is doing much better:

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/new-releases/electronics/281052/ref=zg_bsnr_unv_e_3_3017941_1

      It hasn’t been incorporated to the other best-selling pages yet.

  • koenshaku

    I’m sure after goofing up with the D600

    • Integral Moments

      what a shame mistake of nikon making this error on the D600, i own it and its really making my life miserable of dust/oil issue

  • KnightPhoto

    A7 PDAF autofocus – what’s it like? I’m talking moving subjects.

    A7R = CDAF only. I couldn’t consider any CDAF-only camera a serious entry. 90% of my photography is moving subjects. Ergo no-go on the FujiFilms for me.

  • Espen4u

    Where does a nikon user go when he/she jumps ship? My guesses; oly for size, Canon for choises, Sony for innovation, Fuji for ease. Are Nikon getting any new dslr customers? Probably too few. Are they trying to keep their existing customers? No, not hard enough. We all want nikon to succed, in part to protect our already made investments. So why are they still pumping resorces into p&s, when theres no future there? Why castrate every camera they produce (some more than others).

  • Cuculain

    Nikon, my money is waiting for you.

    Remember the virtues of the Samurai, please.
    I am under the impression, that the wrong managers are making the decisions in your company at the moment. Saving costs at all costs, will not lead you anywhere except oblivion…. neither will the attempt of maximising your revenue on the back of your customers. Read the comentaries on this page: And let the most intelligent of your employees read them…You will find the answers to all your problems. ;-)

  • Peter Ally

    The Nikon profit could not be saved by D400.
    Sorry, but there are very, very few customers for D400. There are only Internet discussion customers for D400, but no real customers for D400. D400 would have to be $1500-$1800 DX camera and nobody would high end DX camera when he colud buy FX camera in nearly same price level. The better body, betterAF, higher framerate cannot be compared with the FX sensor. FX sensor is absolutelly better for everyone. In every case, in every situation, in every case. Any low FX camera will be much, much better than the best DX camera. FX sensor in D3200 body will be much better than DX sensor in D4 body. DX must be destroyed in any body in which FX sensor reach. No customers anymore for any DX body which has the same price level of the FX body.

    • Sahaja

      You’ve dunk the FX Kool Aid

  • stormwatch

    Nikon please, start being reasonable and please make usable product out of the box…..Photo and Video are merged in 2013. (and in the future)…thank you!

  • Guest

    Nikon is definitely headed for tough times financially. I have owned Nikon since 1984. It is all I have ever shot. I own the D4, D800, D200, a couple of sb910s, su800, close up kit and so on. But I have to tell you I am very scared that Nikon has to keep changing its projections for the Street. Companies traditionally do not do well when they are in that loop. It means that forecasts can’t be met even as they try to chop away at expenses. Soon R&D falls off and the spiral down begins. Canon has roughly twice the market cap that Nikon does. If Nikon stock goes low enough they could be a takeover or breakup target. I hope none of these bad things happen but Nikon better get clear focus and right quick.

    • saywhatuwill

      If they were sold, just hope the group that bought Hasselblad doesn’t take over. We’ll be seeing wooden grips on all the Nikons.

  • Joopey

    Sorry, but they missed the boat with not releasing the D400 or the D700s. Perhaps the d400 would not have been a best seller, but it would have sold much better than the D600 did.

    As for the the D700, that was everyone’s dream camera – great quality at just the right price. Yes, we all wanted an replacement with more pixels, but honestly, if they had just kept it on the market as is, it would still be the best selling Nikon camera on the market. And that’s why they pulled it. They knew people would buy it over the D600/610 and they wanted to push those cameras. The trouble is the market, for the most part, has rejected the D600/610 and Nikon doesn’t know what to do.

    Truly the answer is very simple: release the D700s with 20 or 24 megapixels, a sturdy body, 6/7 fps, high ISO, fast shutter speed and watch all of us beg Nikon to take our money.

  • Dean

    If nikon release a 17mm tilt shift, every Nikon architecture photographer / real estate photographer will go crazy with purchases.
    As soon as they release it (if they do) I and many others will be buying it ASAP, even at $3500 a pop
    If it wasn’t for the 14-24 I would have changed by now..

  • Sandy Bartlett

    To be clear, Nikon is profitable, they have sustaind no losses this year, and they have cash in the bank. They have lowered their projections. I believe I read they actually increased profts over last year. Thom Hogan has a nice pece on it at his site. Lets remember also Nikon is one of two profitable camera companies, along side canon. Sony, Oly, Panasonic. Does anuone know when any of those companies turned a profit?

  • George Christofi

    I am with Nikon since FM2 cameras 27 Years
    nikon make good cameras but with this price for example 50 1.4 is way too expensive at $1800 now with DF is overpriced , cam on Nikon what do you want? you want us to looking for some other cameras -Canon ,Sony or Fuji?

    • saywhatuwill

      I think a lot of people aren’t seeing the big picture that the photo market is falling like a rock and businesses need to raise prices just to stay in business. That’s why we have $1800 58mm lenses and $2700 retro cameras. Nikon has to keep the lights on while paying for salaries and keeping the D400 hope alive. All that costs money and last I heard, money still isn’t growing on trees yet.

  • rhlpetrus

    It looks like Nikon is totally paralyzed, from comments here. How about the AW1, the new 58mm f/1.4, D7100, D5300, etc. Boring? Maybe, but still the best serious photog’s lineup out there with Canon’s. Sony, yes, you get a camera and they drop the whole line in a few years. A900/850, SLTs, etc. OLy and Panny at least concentrate on a niche. Fuji is very interesting but will it keep the lines? Smartphones are eating the lower market brackets and will keep on doing that. Asia is a growing market and there ML is doing better, Nikon should be prepared for APS-C ML and fast. FF is a smaller market, people will keep buying that, it’snot going to grow.

  • Eric Bowles

    Sony has their share of financial problems these days. They have quite a challenge in making cameras a profitable line of business. I would not expect any major steps forward from them.

    Nikon does seem to be missing the mark with its cameras. First they had quality issues with the D800 and D600. Then the D7100 was released, but it’s clearly not filling the role of a D400. And now the DF is essentially a retro Nikon F – geared to street photographers and older fans of film cameras. This positions the DF as an expensive niche camera with a narrow market. None of these are volume cameras, and the comps from the prior year featured the D4, D800, D800E and D600.

    I hope that there will be a meaningful release before long. A D400 would certainly be nice and fills a big hole in the DX lineup. A high megapixel D4 – perhaps a D4x with 75 megapixels seems likely (simply the V2 pixel density applied to an FX sensor dimensions). And you have to expect a mirrorless full frame or DX before much longer.

  • EJPB

    Nikon needs to revisit the 70’s. What made their succes. Right: a compact form factor, a sleek, efficient design of all controls, top notch lenses in a compact (Leica-alike) format & finishing (no plastic), affordable 35mm technology for everyone. What we see now: big, bulky and far too expensive DSLR-monsters, poor ‘too electronic’ ergonomics, resolutions we don’t need and that challenges any computer system at the end of the day, immense plastic lenses with completely over the top prices and very average optical performances for quite a few of them. Even Sigma is doing better with quite some focal lengths! This stops even the most enthousiast photographer to spend. Reinvent yourself, Nikon.

  • per

    Some interesting numbers. During the years 2008-2011 Nikon steadily sold camera equipment for about 600 billion yen per year. In the year 2012 they introduced the D4, the D800 and the D600. Sales rose to a whopping 750 billion. This year they now estimate that they will sell for 710 billion yen, while at the same time increasing profits from last year. That would mean their second largest sales in history. So why is there such a gloom? Part of the problem is that Nikon earlier predicted that they would sell for 810 billion this year. Nikon thought that they were on a roll: that 2013 would be the year when they dethroned Canon and became number one. And the market believed them. That won’t happen. And hence the fall in their stocks. But Nikon is still a profitable company. That they can stay profitable despite a shrinking market shows that they are a well run company. My prediction is that Nikon is going to be around for quite some time and continue to produce equipment for their customers to enjoy.

  • Will Speak

    The Df seems like a nice camera but is it what the majority of Nikon users want? I’m guessing that the fall in sales is partly due to owners of D300/D700 waiting for a true replacement for what are still very capable cameras. One might see the D610 as a sort of D700 replacement and the D7100 as a sort of D300 repacement but neither of them quite cut the mustard in the way that the D300/700 did in terms of speed, handling and robustness.

  • Tommy

    Well, if they would come out with a D400 to replace the D300s and some new DX lenses … it might improve Nikon’s sales numbers!?

  • Ha

    consequence of d600 dust issue

  • PieterWolters

    Since digital camera’s are now at a level that no major innovations are needed anymore, the times of strong growth like we’ve seen over the past 10 years are over. E.g from D70 to D90 was quite a huge step forwards. From D7000 to D7100 is only a minor step. The only things that can be added to all current camera’s are relatively small add-on which don’t justify the investment for most people.

  • John_Skinner

    High end Nikons….

    So with their top end body being the D4 presently.. They’ve made the choice to add a XQD card format made by SONY… In the *new* line up of SONY DSLR’s out the over the last 2 weeks in NY photo show, you know how many of those SONY cameras supported XQD ? NONE.

    And when asked about future development and support for the format, SONY had no comment.

    This, and the arguable numbers placed between the NOW DISCONTINUED D3s, and the current top shelf body… You wonder why Nikon’s numbers are looking bad ? You’d have to be one myopic Japanese fella to fall over that one.

  • Brian Rapoza

    D400 would change those numbers fast, stupid Nikon

  • Fred

    The significance here is not whether Nikon will build a camera with the form and specs that we each individually hope for. The issue that if Nikon can not turn around financially it may end up on the rocks like polaroid and Kodak. Continually having to cut forecasts is a very bad sign. The investment community really frowns on this type of thing. I have shot Nikon since 1984 so I am a dyed in the wool fan, but if Nikon can’t get back on track financially things could be quite dire.

  • David Portass

    “As the camera market shrunk due to sluggish business condition”

    What a load of BS, no Nikon, its because you are not listening to your customers and not giving them what they are screaming for. So they either hold on to their money hoping someone will kick you in the back side to get your act together or jumping ship to Canon who, lets face it, made the 5D3, the camera everyone wishes the D800 was (the D4 sensor in a D800 body).

    The Nikon Df is in my honest opinion a wasted opportunity that could have regained a lot of lost customers

  • flaker

    All I really want is a good FX camera with accurate, low-light AF points that are actually spread throughout the frame. I would have bought 4 D600’s if the AF coverage wasn’t so laughable. (I’d have bought 4 D4’s instead if it wasn’t in a full-sized body… bah!)
    Covering a postage stamp in the middle of the frame makes having 51 of them worthless… spread those suckers out!

  • Back to top