Nikon published their financial results for the third quarter

nikon-logo
Nikon published their financial results for the third quarter of the year ending in March 2016. Here are the highlights for the Imaging Business:

Financial results for the 3rd quarter of the year ending March 31, 2016 (Imaging Business)

  • Both sales and operating income decreased, year on year, for the 3rd quarter and three quarters total.
  • Digital SLR cameras and interchangeable lenses fell short of the planned sales volume. However, because of price hikes and SG&A expenses reduction, the operating income ratio in the 3rd quarter posted 11.5%, which exceeded the previous quarter result.

Nikon Financial results
Estimation for the year ending March 31, 2016 (Imaging Business)

  • Sales forecast is downwardly revised by 10 billion yen as a result of the revised market forecast and because of the postponement of new D500 launch. However, operating income forecast is pushed up by 3 billion yen due to the 3rd quarter result as well as the expenses reduction effort in the 4th quarter.

Nikon 2016 fianncial estimation
Few months ago Nikon was ranked as the most most shorted stock in Asia.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Eric Calabros

    %15 less DSLR units, but %8 less income. Right?
    They are still making $50 million per month, so they have money to make a disruption. They have to.

    • Niko NH

      I become Nikon user in 2012, really, in my opinion, if the nikon action camera will be good, maybe, there is a very small chance that they will earn some money.
      I love when company really cares about quality, like when the company is new,young they will care only for quality, trying to make the best product of all that are on market but sometimes nikon is doing stupid marketing, they got a lot of crap that they need to remove!

      • nwcs

        Good news for you. Nikon has changed advertising agencies so their marketing message may be changing. What we see of them (good or bad) in the next few months will set the tone for a long while. Hope they have a much better marketing message…

      • Eric Calabros

        Sport camera market is already in trouble. Look at GoPro. It’s CEO even says its not because of competition (he is right. Those Chinese knock offs image quality is garbage compared to Hero4. There is no competition). Sport camera is like fisheye lens for us, its cool to have, but only for few shots. After those few cool shots, it will absorb the dust on the shelf.

        • My understanding from GoPro users is that the software is really buggy. Not a good endorsement.

    • yep, they have to

      • Thom Hogan

        How long have I been writing that? ;~)

    • Horshack

      Disruptions require creativity, risk tolerance, and considerable investment. I don’t think it’s in the cards for Nikon.

  • fanboy fagz

    shitty sales and theyre rasing prices..thumbs up.
    selling the 17-35 2.8 AFS, a 20 year old for $2000. that helps.

    • Tim Burke

      The new price to me for the 17-35 is around $1160US, the 14-24 is $1200. Some people prefer the 17-35 because it’s lighter and takes filters easily.

      • CV

        So where do you buy?

      • fanboy fagz

        what do u mean to you? on bh the prices are as I listed

        • Tim Burke

          It means that paying retail is against my religion. The prices are probably so similar because there is less demand for the 14-24 and more for the 17-35 than you would think, for the reasons I stated above.

          • fanboy fagz

            I highly doubt the 17-35 sells well. but thats your opinion vs mine. you have no numbers to prove otherwise.

            • Tim Burke

              The law of supply and demand keeps on operating whether you believe in it or not. B+H carry stock. If they don’t sell it, it’s costing them money, so they have to lower the price until the stock starts selling. Those prices reflect what the market is currently willing to pay. Maybe you’re right and very few people buy the 17-35. Even fewer people must be buying the 14-24. I can believe that – it’s a fairly specialised tool that few people appreciate (I’m very fond of mine). The recent release of the 15-30 Tamron for half the price would also have made a large impact on the price of the 14-24.

              The small population of Australia would lead to higher prices, all other things being equal, but Americans pay a high premium for “US warranty” Nikon cameras.

            • nightoil

              In 1888, George Eastman said: “You Press the Button, We Do the Rest.” That’s still EXACTLY what 99% of the world’s “photographers” want. (The quotes denoting my elitism – as a “serious” Nikon photographer of *many* decades!)

              99% of today’s photographers only ever view their images on a smartphone screen. Their photographs are simply an ephemeral record of events, places or themselves in an ever-accelerating present. Who needs DSLR quality? The concept of a print is rapidly vanishing. Who is even aware of the possibility of messing around for hours or even minutes in photo editing software with raw files, levels, curves, gamma, masks, layers, USM, HDR etc?

              I, on the other hand, stuck in the fast receding world of Capture NX2, just bought possibly the very last brand new, boxed D300S in the UK. Crazy? Probably. Yes, I’ve got a D800. Yes, that’s a fabulous camera. But in terms of the great intangible of outright image quality (NOT meaning pixel quantity, high ISO capability etc), I keep returning to the D300S.

              For landscape, streetscape, blightscape, shards of light on blank walls etc, it can’t be beat. Just has such beautifully crunchy, honest colour rendition. Such a homely camera – with the wonderfully reassuring slow motion ker-phlunk of its ancient-sounding mirror-shutter sequence. Like music – warms the heart. Almost 19th century!

              Maybe pure photography is going the way of classical music, jazz, rock ‘n roll, vinyl, books, the ability to walk in bright air sans phone glued to ear. Maybe it’s becoming purely a medium of personal contemplation. (And what a great one at that.)

              My gratitude and condolences to Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al (and, more immediately, Samsung).

            • fanboy fagz

              the tamron didnt come out at half price. it $700 less. say what you will. that 17-35 isnt a great buy. people will go for the 16-35VR first and the 14-24 2nd. but many are buying the tamron as well. I need to do a video of my friends gear. he has the 17-35. motor stopped working, the 14-24, motor stopped working and he bought the tamron and he says best WA lens ever. no distortion.

            • Tim Burke

              A lot of people think the 17-35 is optically superior to the 16-35. Some people love the 16-35 but it seems to suffer from sample variation. The edges on mine are poor even stopped down. It does compete more or less directly with the 17-35 in that it takes regular filters. The 14-24 and the Tamron compete with each other in their own category, which must influence the price of the Nikon.

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, but…

              Yes, B&H certainly will lower prices on inventory that sticks around. They’re a savvy retailer that understands that “turns” are one of their primary metrics. But the problem is that B&H also isn’t going to re-order said product, certainly not in any volume. This puts back pressure on the camera makers.

            • ZoetMB

              Supply and demand has no role when the manufacturer enforces minimum selling prices (not just minimum advertised prices) in the U.S. Almost everything at B&H sells at list or within $3 of list. Even the grey market imports, which used to be highly discounted, sell pretty much at list (with a few exceptions) and with some exceptions are only available (at least online) when the U.S. version is out-of-stock. So there’s no law of supply and demand except when Nikon says there is and offers rebates, special sales or reduces the prices.

              You’d think Nikon would permit discounting on the older AF and MF lenses, but they don’t.

            • ITN

              This is not true. The 14-24 was a huge sales success to Nikon and it’s one of their best selling professional lenses.

          • ITN

            The 17-35 is unlikely to sell more than a few percent of the 14-24’s sales numbers. It is more expensive because it was first discontinued and then returned to production for a small group of people who insist on this range, so the per unit cost is high for maintaining this inventory of a product that isn’t selling well (since it’s not competitive with the 14-24 in terms of image quality).

    • Thom Hogan

      No, it shows that the Nikon fan club has been willing to pay. So far. But getting people to upgrade and supplement is going to get tougher and tougher if they continue the cut costs, raise prices micromanagement they have been.

  • animalsbybarry

    I cannot understand why neither Nikon or Canon have yet introduced a pro level ff mirrorless camera yet.
    I can only imagine that they still cling to the fantasy…despite decreased dslr sales..that dslr will continue to thrive…
    It will not, it is dying, and unless they get into mirrorless they will die with it.

    • fanboy fagz

      that A6300 looks like a killer camera for wedding video as a backup. shame no ibis and only 1 card slot

      • BlueBomberTurbo

        Small and light enough to toss on a gimbal. Not much that can be done about the card slot besides using sensible size cards to minimize data loss.

        • animalsbybarry

          No IBIS sucks.

        • fanboy fagz

          for the amount id spend for a gimbal like the nebula, id just get the a7sII with ibis. a different level. but for a main camera, id prefer a nikon camera so I can also do stills, which is the bulk of my work

      • Eric Duminil

        + either shitty lenses, or big, expensive Sony with a Zeiss
        tag on it, that all might be deprecated in a few years. No thanks.

    • BlueBomberTurbo

      Pretty much. With every generation, Sony’s making pretty big strides at eliminating the gap between DSLR and mirrorless performance. Really all that’s left is for them to make a true pro body. Maybe they’re waiting until they level the playing field before doing something like that.

      • animalsbybarry

        If I were to guess Sony is probably waiting and ready with a pro level body, but will not release it until immeadiatly after Nikon and Canon anounce thier own pro level mirrorless camera.

        • Wade Marks

          It’s tempting to try to read into these companies’ release schedules like it’s some sort of tit for tat competition. But in reality it’s not at all like that.

          These companies spend big bucks to develop their product and plan a release schedule in advance. They release when they feel the product and the market is ready. They don’t hold back a product they think will sell because they are waiting for another company to release a rumored product.

          If Sony has a pro level body ready they would release it. They do not yet have such a thing ready and so they haven’t released it. If Sony has a pro level body ready and doesn’t release it and give it to some sports shooters to use during the Olympics, they are crazy to wait on a phantom rumor about Nikon and Canon mirrorless. If I were a shareholder I would sue Sony for fiscal malfeasance based on that.

          • J.Coi

            It is true also, Sony will judge market ready depends on Canon and Nikon plan. Sony follow some release plans for Canon or Nikon mirrorless, it can control a schedule. Sony does not need “phantom rumor” because industry is small and inside people discuss so much about plans. This is a reason how Canon and Nikon some times release sync (for example D5 and 1DX-II). So OK, Sony “will not release it until immeadiatly after Nikon and Canon anounce thier own pro level mirrorless camera” can be true! 🙂

            • jonra01

              Do you really believe that in this ever-changing market that a company would deliberately delay releasing a product and give a competitor time to bring out one based on newer technology? That makes absolutely no sense. I can see a company using a very minor delay, like a few days or even a couple of weeks, but more than that would be unlikely.

            • J.Coi

              This is not what I try to explain. Sorry if because my bad English. In our industry, a company will some time delay to finalize product. Instead they continue development. They wait for the competitor move close to release.

            • jonra01

              My lack of understanding is not your fault. I know, without a doubt, that your grasp of my language is greater than my grasp of yours.

              Now to the topic at hand. If a company delays to fix a problem to their product then it doesn’t really have anything to do with their competitor.

              As for other possible scenarios, I can’t really see a company delaying to see what features the competitor is offering. It would be far too late in the product cycle to add matching features to their own product. I also can’t see them allowing a competitor to beat them to market. If they are both bringing out the same innovative new feature then being first to market is very important.

              The last reason I can’t see a company delaying on a competitor, is the constantly evolving nature of the camera industry. Wait too long and your product has become obsolete before it is even introduced.

            • J.Coi

              In small industry there is more collaboration! Some time it is more important for whole industry to show “unified vision” to customer base. This can be more important when industry is with trouble against a market trend. You can see it in fashion industry like “this year’s colors”. Consumer photo imaging industry do the same. Each company take a different path, but we talk and watch to help one other! We are working to survive.

            • jonra01

              Ah, yes. But these aren’t small fashion houses. We are talking about 100’s of billions of yen in revenue per year for Nikon. In Canon’s case, it is trillions of yen. They will take any advantage they can get to gain market share.

            • J.Coi

              If you choose work in this industry then you will learn this facts also, ok! Market share is not important if market disappear.

        • PhilK

          Personally, I doubt Sony wants to invest the resources necessary to produce a competitor in that segment when A) unit sales are extremely small no matter how good the product is, and B) everyone keeps claiming that flipping-mirror DSLRs are a “dead-end product”. Especially Sony themselves, more or less.

          I’d be more inclined to believe they are working on pro-level mirrorless products.

      • And reliability, battery life, lens selection and menus. I think reliability and battery life is probably holding Sony back a little in terms of taking over the pro market. But it’s similar to the whole range finder slr fight way back when. slr’s have the ability to pretty much do anything from studio to wildlife, mirroless is still lacking for sports, wildlife as was rangefinders. If your trekking in a jungle would you want a Sony with ten spare batteries or just an dslr? So if Sony brought out a larger more robust body with a stonking battery and sorted out their menu systems and af maybe they will take over more of the pro market.

      • Thom Hogan

        And so far that hasn’t gained them market share ;~).

        FWIW, Sony is managing to the same thing Nikon is: lower still camera sales. Sony is doing that more at the lower end, emphasizing high end sales, Nikon is more spread from low to high.

    • nwcs

      While I like mirrorless that’s a bit of an overstatement. Mirrorless isn’t exactly taking over yet and its advantages are a bit exaggerated. For the camera makers mirrorless is more about cost savings than anything else. That means it’ll eventually win but not because of anything inherent in the concept.

      • Wade Marks

        Agreed. Mirrorless is nice in some ways, but so far not the camera utopia some have promised. And unfortunately by the time mirrorless would take over from dslr’s, the dedicated camera market will be even smaller.

      • animalsbybarry

        I dissagree.
        DSLR is a vestigial remnent of the film camera era, and would not even exist if digital evolved first.
        I for one will not miss the flapping mirror.

        • Tim Burke

          The point of the mirror is the AF system, and also to avoid having to look at a nasty, laggy, low res video screen. I was told the A7RII could AF better than a DSLR. What a joke.

          • Singani Mamiya

            AF precision is already way beyond of what a DSLR can do for you, and that is important with today’s high res sensors. Let’s see how the new A6300’s AF performs, then give them 1/2 year to put the new tech onto a FX sensor and let them design a bigger body. If I were Nikon, I’d be worried.

            • Tim Burke

              I don’t have a problem getting things in focus now, so they can take all the time they like.

            • Singani Mamiya

              I thought so, too. But the images that I get from my A7R II are consistently better focused 100% of the time. Eye-AF just works great for portraits.

            • Michiel953

              If you can’t focus consistently on the eye of your choice with f.i. an 810 you should have someone look at your eyes.

            • HF

              Please define consistently, esp. with 1.4 lenses wide open and not only using the center focus point you fine-tuned focus for.

            • Michiel953

              I (almost) never shoot my 1.4 primes wide open. I’m oldfashioned: stop down at least one stop, that’ll get rid of a lot of lens deficiencies and (slightly) improves your chance of nailing focus. I say slightly, because at 36mp and the close distances I usually work with every miss is clearly visible.

              An adequate number of focus points live up to the center point’s accuracy, some others don’t .

              Look up the meaning of “consistent” yourself.

            • HF

              No need to be annoyed. As everybody has a different definition of “sharp enough” and “nailed focus”, the ratio of in- to out-of focus shots according to your definition will vary. So “consistent” has a wide margin, imo. I posed the question not to annoy you, but to learn what you meant.

            • Thom Hogan

              Uh, no. Having shot with the best mirrorless cameras and the best DSLRs, I would not even come close to saying that “precision” of focus is better on mirrorless. I’m about to release a review of a well-regarded mirrorless camera where I actually disclaim that.

              What I see is that we’re in another “good enough” argument coupled with “customer understanding.” Generally, I find that few people, even pros, fully understand how the DSLR focus systems work, and how to maximize them. I can point to dozens of pros who just set their DSLR to some focus settings and shoot, as if that setting is a magic setting that works for everything.

              Meanwhile, in the mirrorless crowd, you have people doing the same thing and getting better experiences than they did with the tough-to-understand DSLR focus systems. So they claim “precision.” Nope. Precision is precision. To me that means nailing each and every focus plane in every circumstance. And that requires knowledge of the photographer of how the system works, as well as a system that works predictably.

            • HF

              It is difficult to discuss about these things, if it is not clear what the commenter whom you are addressing and you yourself mean specifically. Only talking about AF neglects the many subtleties involved. So is he talking about moving subjects, portrait situations, front-/back focus, AF performance using center or non-center points, which lighting conditions, etc. etc.
              My impression is that most people favouring MILCs are talking about lack of front-/backfocus (if CDAF is used since OSPDAF shows that, too) and translate that into all situations.

            • The “focus peaking” option on my Sony A77 II (DSLT not DSLR) is great for close focusing with manual focus lenses. I set my focus peaking to bright red and I can nail focus every time. On a DSLT, what you see in the EVF is what your get in the final capture which is really advantageous when stopping down to F16 or F22. My D7200 and D810 are much more difficult to use.

            • Thom Hogan

              Focus peaking is generally not very precise. But if you’re stopping down to f/16 or f/22 and getting diffracted results, I’m not sure you need to be precise.

            • animalsbybarry

              Thom if you complain about precision it is because you are not using it properly.
              After you use the focus peaking to get your subject in focus, center the most critical focus area in your viewfinder and push the small inner button on top of the camera near the shutter button.
              That will magnify your critical focus are 4x then 12 x
              Fine tune your manual focus, push the button again to return to focus peaking , recompose and shoot.
              This may sound complicated, but once you have practiced it is almost instantaneous.
              Focus is dead on perfect every single time.

            • animalsbybarry

              I set mine to yellow…after I have it in focus I push the small inner button on top of the camera to magnify the focus area and fine tune the focus…add that secongd step you will be amazed at the results.

            • Thanks for the tip.

            • Singani Mamiya

              I think there are a few aspects:
              – Most obvious front/backfocus issues due to production tolerances or a misaligned focus module. Focus adjustments often help only for a specific focus point, distance and focal length for zooms.
              – Focus shift, Sonys often focus stopped down to working aperture
              – In face recognition modes: e.g. the D810 has a 0.091 MP module that only takes a rough image of the scene, a Sony should have much finer readout. When you let the camera select an AF point (like in Nikon 3D tracking), the actual AF point selection is much finer grained, to focus exactly on an eye.
              – 100% AF coverage of viewfinder. No more focus in center and recompose.

              The learning curve to master the AF is actually higher for a mirrorless, I think. It is not a DSLR AF and you have to re-think some strategies, to get the most out of it. Eye-AF not enabled by default, nor is face recognition.

            • Thom Hogan

              * As I’ve noted elsewhere, mirrorless cameras have the same tolerance issues as DSLRs if they rely solely on PD to attain focus. Most now use CD as a followup to PD to attain focus, meaning that there’s an additional step that slows the process.

              * Focus shift works both for and against the mirrorless cameras. The Sony, for example, attains focus with the lens wide open using PD, then attempts to correct it with CD with the lens stopped down. What companies are trying to do with the CD step, including Sony, is use brute force speed on the CD step to get the same performance as all-PD systems. At least in the current shipping Sony systems, I see them not actually attaining a perfect focus via CD, but stopping immediately when they think they’re in a good enough range (to keep speed up).

              * In face recognition, I believe Sony does something different than Nikon. Nikon uses color to determine where the face and eye is. Sony uses pattern. Whether one or the other is better is questionable. I’d tend to say that Sony’s approach works better for more static subjects, Nikon’s works better for fast moving subjects.

              * Yes, many of the so called “didn’t focus right” complaints actually turn out to be people relying solely on the central focus sensor. But I find this true of mirrorless cameras as well as DSLRs. And Sony has no quick and easy way to move the sensor, it’s a two step and awkward process compared to the joysticks on current high end Canon/Nikon.

            • PhilK

              Don’t forget that if you massively increase the resolution of that lowly 0.091 MP module, you then have to process all that additional data, which takes time, battery power, and produces heat. Sometimes having more data is not the solution to everything.

          • HF

            Having both, it is in some aspects very true, especially with fast lenses. What you don’t experience any more is AF-misses due to mis-calibrated AF-system, especially with fast lenses. It is almost impossible to get a zoom perfectly calibrated for all focal lengths, distances, focus points and when having changing temperatures and lighting. If you get used to have every focused shot “really” in focus, without the need to double shots to be on the safe side, is a huge thing in my opinion.

            • Thom Hogan

              I actually experience more misses with well-regarded cameras such as the E-M1 or A7IIr than with my DSLR. But I suspect that our definition of “misses” is different.

              What I see in subject-moving shots with the mirrorless cameras is that they do not nail the focus plane consistently as the subject moves. They get “close enough.”

            • HF

              That’s why I restrict my opinion to “some aspects”. When subjects are moving faster, I have more misses compared to my D810 or D750, for example. When doing portraits at weddings etc. with lenses wide open, I have a much higher keeper rate with the Sony. Eye-Af works amazingly good, too. That’s why we have both Nikon and Sony at weddings, for example, making use of the strengths of both systems. It is often annoying having to change fine-tuning depending on temperature and light, as well as account for field curvature with 1.4 lenses. On the other hand, our 70-200/2.8g vrii is working flawlessly. Increasing subject distance and using wider angled 1.4 primes help in the DOF is large enough to often hide slight AF front/back focus.

          • animalsbybarry

            Check the a6300 af…you will stop laughing.

            • Michiel953

              That camera has been out for like two days, has not been tested properly yet, but spells the imminent doom of DSLR’s?
              Amazing.

            • animalsbybarry

              The DSLR is dead…it is mot BECAUSE of the a6300…which I donot even like…it is just one more example of how the last of the dslr “advantages” continue to drop like flies.
              In this case AF speed , Tracking, and live view advantages have been shattered…at some point Sony might even be smart enough to realize they can put a bigger battery and dual card slot in thier cameras…or that they can put IBIS in all thier cameras, not just some.
              The mistakes Sony continues to make are just stupid mistakes, not technocal limitations…Nikon cannot count on Sony remaining so stupid forever.

            • Michiel953

              So many words. Be happy in your church, with your beliefs. You do know that all that singing in church induces hallucinations?

            • I am sure many pro photographers will use the a6300 to capture the Olympics instead of a D5 🙂

        • Mike

          I disagree. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Explain how an a7 with their new 24-70 2.8 is more comfortable to handle all day than a D750 with a 24-70 2.8. The small form factor makes it less so. The small battery forces the user to be more cautious about usage. With less moving parts, prices are still in line with DSLRs, yet critical performance is still inferior to DSLRs. What you see in an EVF already happened. The a7II that I had for 3 months had an EVF and screen that showed different exposures. I exposed for what I saw in the EVF and the monitor showed different in playback too. Which do I believe? Refresh rate of the EVF in low light situations is abysmal…. Leads to missing the shot. Mirrorless might be fine in ideal situations, but give it a challenge and it crumbles. DSLR, game set and match.

          • Wade Marks

            Good point, Mike. Just because a technology has been around for a while, doesn’t make it useless.

            The round wheel has been around for a long time, but no one is putting square tires on their cars just to be something new.

            EVF’s have yet to even come close to matching an OVF, no matter the hype.

            • animalsbybarry

              Check the a6300 evf.

            • Thom Hogan

              Sorry, but I’ll say no. You seem to be buying the marketing mumbo jumbo hook, line, and sinker.

            • How do you know about the a6300 EVF after the camera was just released? Have you seen it? How can you judge an EVF without using it? Just based on specs? This is typical Sony – the specs always look good on paper.

            • animalsbybarry

              Just to clarify..
              As a camera I do not like the a6300 at all and have no interest in purchasing it…lack of IBIS and only 24 mp are deal killers for me.
              I am however highlighting some of the new technological advances that I feel make it absolutely essential for both Canon and Nikon to sriosly enter the mirrorless field in order to maintain thier marked leading shares for the long term.

            • I agree that Nikon needs a serious mirrorless solution and they will come up with one, I am just not convinced that the Sony a7 is the best camera money can buy, that’s all.

            • animalsbybarry

              That is not what I am saying either..Sony has some great camera parts but has not yet put them together into the ultimate camera.
              Nikon needs to be in the competition BEFORE Sony puts all the pieces together into an unstoppable camera system.

              If Sony really wants to build the ultimate camera all they need to do is listen to what Canon and Nikon fans are saying they are doing wrong and fix them.

            • Eric Duminil

              “Only 24mp” is a deal killer for you?
              You gotta be kidding, right? What were you shooting 4 years ago? What on earth do you absolutely need 24+ for?

            • animalsbybarry

              I require the hihest possible resolution as I use my photos for refferrence and reguire the most detail possible.
              Lots of cameras are 24 mp, I have no need of another.
              I typically print big …and currently often combine photos in order to have 200mp+ files to print my refferrence prints.
              My final products are my paintings.

            • PhilK

              Have you actually, personally used that camera?

          • HF

            Disagree. Using the A7rii alongside D750 and D810 at weddings, it works perfectly. Switch on histogram and you have an additional option to judge. In very low light the A7rii (and A7ii) works nicely. I don’t have problems using them. The D810 struggles first in low light and the VF is pretty dark. D750 works better here. All this DSLR vs. MILC war is ridiculous and exaggerated. It is not about handling or batteries (if you don’t find the time in a wedding to change batteries, you should really ask yourself whether you do something wrong). How did people manage to change film rolls a decade ago?

          • animalsbybarry

            Horses werent broke, but automobiles passed them by.
            Film didn’t break but digital passed it by
            DSLR may not be broke , but it is dead.

            • Mike

              That makes no sense. Cars enabled faster transport of more than 2 people. Digital allowed far greater and faster manipulation of an image. For working, critical situations, a DSLR is still the better tool. Still the better all around performer. There is no end user cost savings to getting (FF) mirrorless. And nothing that can be done better than a DSLR by using mirrorless. Most people are shooting in static light situations where looking at a histogram and LV exposure for every single shot is not necessary. And LV histogram and exposure are great and all but you’re in the same boat as DSLRs go for flash use.

              Anyway, we will continue to disagree. Mirrorless doesn’t fit my needs at this time other than as a recreational camera. the X100 series however is in my opinion the best example of modernizing OVF. If Nikon incorporated an overlay of the OVF like Fuji has….. That would make Sony shiver.

            • Espen4u

              Nikon already has a patent for an EVF assisted OVF, if I’m not wrong… I would love to see that on the d850.

          • Riley Escobar

            What you see in ANY viewfinder has already happened; it’s the nature of light 🙂

            It would be interesting to see if Fuji’s EVF overlay can be implemented in a DSLR; having the choice of EVF or OVF in the same camera would be ideal.

        • TheRasmus

          Sony is doing miracles with their mirrorless cameras.

          Take A7R II or A6300 for example – simply amazing machines.
          1. Superb autofocus that covers maybe more than 80-85% of the frame.
          2. Very nice features such as eyeball tracking – all you have to do is to think for composition, camera will take care for the person’s eye to be in focus.
          3. Superb video – I’m not a videographer but maybe the reason not to shoot video is only because Nikon’s video is awful. Really can’t stand it.

          So I miss painfully the first two options and the third one would be nice to have.

          The only reason I haven’t switched to Sony yet is because I have invested a lot of money in my Nikon system.

          • animalsbybarry

            Sony has the best tech but is not a real camera company and continues to make stupid mistakes
            Such as no IBIS on the a6300
            Small battery
            Zero effective merketing..etc.
            If not for those mistakes Nikon and Canon would be in real trouble..Nikon apparently already is.Nikon is only surviving by slashing expenses to keep ahead of plummetting revenue. That cannot continue for much longer…they are still showint a paper profit, bet are dieing…!!!
            Without a SERIOUS mirrorless entry Nikon will die.
            If they wait till it is too late…it will be too late…!!!!

            • TheRasmus

              I don’t care about IBIS. None of the Nikon cameras has in-body stabilization and I it’s not a problem for me at all – I am used with it.

              As for battery – yes, the battery life in most mirrorless is ridiculously small. This is one of the main disadvantages of EVF and on-sensor focusing – it drains the battery too quickly.
              But on the other side you have all the frame covered by the autofocus system and the focus is exactly where it should be without having to calibrate your lenses.

            • animalsbybarry

              While I agrre about small batteries it is REALLY not the big deal Canikon fans like to make it.
              It literrally takes me 3 seconds…I have timed it…to change a battery, and the status indicator tells you when to do it so you do not need to run out of power mid shoot….just don’t wait till the battery is fully depleted.
              Watson FW-50 batteries are only$30 and are very good…bh…if you want an altetnative to Sony batteries.
              As for dual card slots…again while I agree it should be available..with highly reliable and fast sdxc cards available with capacites up to 512 gb it is just not a big issue.

            • I am not sure where you are getting your news, but Sony is not doing that great either. I’ve said this many times before – Sony just has the latest toy and is currently drawing the attention of the online community. The same was the case with the D800, Fuji (X100 and X-Pro1) and Leica M9 few years ago. Trends come and go. Come back here in few years (may even be earlier) and let’s talk again.

            • PhilK

              Speaking of Sony’s success, I seem to recall that they reported declining revenue in their sensor business last quarter. Apparently the high-volume smartphone/mobile sensor business is getting seriously eroded by a variety of newer/lower-priced competitors.

              Since that segment of the sensor business is very high volume and a large revenue/profit producer, that may change the dynamics in the sensor business and put them on the back foot from a R&D spending POV.

            • TwoMetreBill

              5 years from now, bouncing mirrors and mechanical shutters will be history. Will Nikon be just another company that slid into irrelevance and out of existence? Have they the resources and moxie to weather the transition? One can hope the answers are relatively no and yes but I wouldn’t bet on it.

              And reading this thread reminds me of the defenders of drum brakes and carburetors.

            • KnightPhoto

              On this forum we expect a Nikon mirrorless soon Bill, even this year, maybe…

            • PhilK

              While I don’t doubt that will eventually take place, I don’t think it’s progressing as fast as some people think.

              Nikon’s cameras have a classic quality – 20 years from now they will still be relevant, just like a 20 year old Nikon is today. Whereas 20 years from now an early example of a MILC with a lousy low-res EVF and crappy AF system probably will have already been thrown into the dump and forgotten.

            • 24×36

              Stop with the incorrect analogies already. Disc brakes and fuel injection are better than drum brakes and carburetors; MILCs are NOT better than DSLRs. Big difference.

            • KnightPhoto

              There’s some things Canikon are stupidly leaving off that would make their DSLRs mirrorless killers:
              – Add-on EVF for our DSLRs (sure and toss in Zebras and Focus peaking);
              – on sensor PDAF;
              – even smaller/lighter D750/Df;
              – how about super high quality f3.5 primes etc.?
              Do the above and you could put together a compact DSLR kit that takes away most of the advantages of mirrorless yet retains the advantages of DSLR.

              Not that I hate mirrorless, just that the above would give me every advantage mirrorless has and every advantage DSLR has.

            • PhilK

              I personally don’t understand why we don’t get an add-on EVF option. Are they worried about “validating the other camp”? That would be pathetic.

              If for no other reason than for some low-light scenarios where my aging eyes can’t see in the dark as good as they used to. 😀

              But not being married to the EVF and being able to choose when to use it without compromising the OVF qualities of the camera would be.. dreamy…

          • animalsbybarry

            Several new Nikon F to Sony E mount auto adapters are on the way
            Commlite has released one that works very well with most Nikon and Tamron lenses…firmare upgrades to come..in a month or 2 production will catch up to demand
            Steel Chen is working on one that may be even better.
            So if you like one of the new Sony cameras there will soon be no obstacle to buying one
            And remember…with adapters you do not need to switch systems to use a Sony camera…just buy what you want and add it to your current system.

        • nwcs

          Except for true TTL. EVF displays are nice and can give good information but nothing is as responsive as the human eye and there are times when you don’t want a light shining in your eyes but still want to see what the camera sees.

          • animalsbybarry

            The evf shows you what the camera sees and what the picture will actually look like.
            Ovf shows you only what your eye can see through the lens, not what the camera sees or what the picture looks like.
            If digital evolved before film there would never have been slr or ovf.

            • Thom Hogan

              You like VGA monitors, eh? Is that what you use to type your Internet posts?

            • nwcs

              I doubt it. There’s advantages to both. The EVF is an approximation of the result. It’s useful, no one denies it, but it’s not suitable for all situations.

            • whisky

              illustration and oil painting evolved before film. each new medium mimics that which it attempts to replace.

            • AYWY

              I thought that was a big deal too when I first picked up a MILC, then I learned about RAW and ETTR – and the whole “you can see the actual exposure” advantage diminished. It came to the point where I had to actually force myself to ignore the exposure I see in the EVF. Indeed once I started practicing ETTR, the EVF became a disadvantage.

              In high contrast or brightness situations, dialing in the correct exposure literally meant I could not see my subject at all.

              The fun fact is: I could get wrong exposures with the EVF too. Put it to my eye, was so happy snapping because everything “looked right”, then put it down and looked at the real world – whoops the exposure really wasn’t right.

              Another fun fact: Nikon’s DSLR metering system got me more correct exposures than when I was trying to be smart with the EVF on my MILCs. 😛

              In addition, I found that in real life I actually don’t have time to look through the EVF, notice that the exposure is wrong, then adjust it. I got to get it right fast, or the moment is over, or my subject is wondering why I need more time to take a picture with my expensive camera than they do with their mobile phone. 🙂 This means understanding my equipment’s metering system and set it correctly before raising the viewfinder to my eye. Literally this is, “Mmmm this looks like matrix-metering, -1 compensation… OK this one is centre-weighted, -0.3. Focus and lock exposure, Re-compose. Hey this works!”

              I appreciate what the EVF does. But in consideration of how I shoot, I’ll still prefer an OVF now.

            • animalsbybarry

              There are so many settings that if you learn the camers you will be able to customize the settings to shoot the way you want.

            • HF

              I never have a problem with this. Auto-Iso, no problem with D810 or A7rii. I can use both cameras the same way if I like. ETTR? Just turn exposure preview off. Or use the in-VF histogram. Matrix-Spot metering? All there, too. Did you use the actual models? Since with older ones I could understand your points.

            • No, the EVF doesn’t show what the picture will actually look like. It’s simply showing what the picture will look like on the EVF if it would be replayed on it, not what the actual picture looks like. Can you color-calibrate your EVF?

          • animalsbybarry

            That statement is outdated…camera sensors now exceed the the capabilities of the human eye in many ways and that capability is improving.
            But what the human eye is seeing is not what the picture will look like…what the sensor sees is.
            If you want to see with your eyes..put down the camera…if you want to see what you are photographing pick up an evf.

            • nwcs

              Not really. My eye adapts to changing light better, instant refresh, and I’m not having a light shine in my eyes in dim lighting conditions which alters my dark adaptation.

              I used a Fuji exclusively for 2 years. I’m very familiar with their strengths and weaknesses.

            • D700s

              Man you just keep digging that hole. Stop now and quit embarrassing yourself. In no way is a camera sensor exceeding the human eye. As a matter of fact Canon shooters are still complaining about DR. You do know what that is I hope. No competition with the human eye…. Even HDR only gets close.

            • animalsbybarry

              Educating you about how todays sensors in many ways can exceed the human eye goes beyond the scope of todays discussion..but there are many many articles available on the subject..google the topic and read some of them.

          • HF

            In that case turn off exposure preview and it behaves like an OVF.

            • nwcs

              But it is still an artificial light shining in your eye. And without exposure preview it’s grainy and not very useful. An EVF is a useful tool but not for every possible situation.

            • HF

              To everyone his/her own. I use both and so far haven’t had a problem at weddings, for example. Grainyness wan’t an issue so far unless when shooting macro.

            • nwcs

              Thankfully I have not shot a wedding in years. I mostly shoot for fun now. I had two years of experience with evf displays at night and dark venues. I didn’t like them. They’re also a liability in super bright sunshine outdoors. Otherwise I really liked them.

            • HF

              I wouldn’t have used most MILCs for this, too, until recently. For me the A7rii is the first MILCs being at a level I want for my type of shooting.

        • whisky

          what’s antiquated is the way we still use our photos. the next technical disruption will follow the next creative disruption.

    • Shutterbug

      Mirrorless sales have been essentially flat, and a fraction of DSLR sales for the last 4 years. Unless some huge revelation is made both on the camera side and the lens/system side, that isn’t going to change anytime soon.

      • animalsbybarry

        The a7rii..sensor surpassed dslr sensors
        A6300 af performans surpassed dslr
        When they put the features together and make a more pro body there will be no reason at all to buy slr.
        Dslr is dead….some people just dont know it or are still in denial…but just like global warming it will become harder and harder to deny.
        And many people still deny evolution…but the mirrorless camera is evolving, despite those who deny evolution.

        • Clubber Lang

          For the majority of the non photo enthusiasts in the world, there is no reason to buy a camera at all. That’s the issue facing companies. The good times are over and they’re never coming back. They can take the mirror out and it will still be the same antiquated method for posting photos of their kid picking their nose while eating pudding.

        • John Picking

          That’s funny. The world’s collective population can’t build a proper mirrorless camera but your complex eye camera in your head happened along by mindless chance. Who is in denial?

          • animalsbybarry

            ????????????????????

            • John Picking

              Reading comprehension.

        • # Sony fanboy alert #

          • Thom Hogan

            Yeah, and what a fan boy, at that. The A7rII and A6300 are the greatest cameras ever, but Sony is making mistakes like mad. That seems to be his inconsistent position.

            • I was in uganda recently on holiday after a safari and met a photographer who preached Sony at me. I was like, great man use any camera that works for you. His reply? “You should go Sony, way better, jesshe that mirror shaking his head”.
              “I was in the middle of no where shooting wildlife so my poor old dslr is good for that sort of thing. ”
              “Na but my Sony has 42mpx and is best.”
              I turned away and went to the bar. He refused to see that some systems are good for some things and some for others, and that we all have our own needs. Some people take equipment to be some weird religion, why do they care what other people shoot? Number one rule with preachers don’t engage them in conversation, its pointless.

            • Thom Hogan

              Best class I ever took was in the Kelley MBA program at IU: business ethics. We actually spent about most of the semester on something else prior to getting to what you would call ethics. And that’s “first premise.”

              Everyone has assumptions/beliefs that they have, for various reasons, tacitly accepted. Religion, communism/capitalism, democrat/republican, and so on. Those beliefs establish a first premise position that the person then builds their decisions and arguments on. If you destroy someone’s first premise, they then have no clear ability to decide for themselves, and become vulnerable to other assumptions/beliefs.

              Marketing works on people’s assumptions/beliefs all the time. In the case of DSLR versus mirrorless, the marketing message has been clear from the five non-duopoly players: that mirrorless itself construes some benefit that can never be attained by a DSLR. The duopoly’s actions and marketing haven’t actually attempted to disprove that.

              I should point out that it is in self-interest that the mirrorless players attempt to convince people that a mirror is a liability. Without doing so, they really don’t have a position that’s effectively different than the duopoly DSLR position. As I pointed out elsewhere, this is classic Ries and Trout: if you can’t be #1 or #2 at something, create a new product category out of the established one and dominate it.

              Photography should be about photography. You should make decisions about equipment based upon photography, not marketing messages that attempt to break your first premise (“DSLRs are the best cameras”) and substitute something else that’s beneficial to the marketer.

              I’d also say that anyone believing the “DSLRs are the best cameras” first premise was putting a first premise in place that didn’t need to be there, too. The thinking should always be “what’s the best camera for what I’m trying to do photographically?” Period.

            • PhilK

              Of course it should just be about what results we get. Unfortunately we have a political system and culture that works against that, “brand identity” and “brand politics” are the result of that in modern times.

              Also, because of the vast amounts of resources necessary to develop and produce these products (it’s not like we can go into our garage or backyard and forge our own tools like forging a hammer), the companies who have expended those resources to produce those products have a need to press the marketing angle in order to keep their business viable. Whether or not those goals are always in sync with their customer’s and potential customer’s needs and objectives or not.

            • Lotus Eater

              @thomhogan:discus @animalsbybarry:disqus

              Quite an eye opener seeing how you two guys act on other forums.

              Thom Hogan acting like a juvenile. Barry acting like, well, Barry, just antagonizing another forum instead of SAR.

            • nwcs

              Are you then the tattle-tale?

          • animalsbybarry

            I guess when the Samikon deal fell through so did the ff Nikon mirrorless camera 8-(

            • You are probably the only person on the Internet to still believe that something was going on between Nikon and Samsung. Let it go, you got punked.

          • PhilK

            Actually I’ve been wondering if we haven’t seen a little astroturfing in this thread..

        • Thom Hogan

          Wow, we have a fanboy who’s drunk a lot of kool aid this morning.

          I would hope that the A7rII sensor would surpass a four-year old sensor that established the high end. But what are you going to say when something else surpasses the A7rII this year? ;~)

          • animalsbybarry

            When a better sensor and a better camera come out I will buy one.

            • Thom Hogan

              I doubt that. Did you buy a D800 in 2012?

            • animalsbybarry

              Don’t like flaping mirrors…and have no lenses to use with it.
              My 800 f5.6 Sigma/Nikon mount lacks oss so I use it on the a7rii with focus peakung and focus magnification .
              Those are fantastic features we have not yet talked about here.

            • You use a 800mm lens with focus peaking? Does it work for you? So the great Sony doesn’t provide you with a 800mm lens so you have to use the dying DSLR lenses….

            • animalsbybarry

              I use the a7rii and set up the focus peaking to make my in focus edges yellw.
              The big comfortable focus ring makes that real easy.
              I thn push a button and my chosen aubject is magnified 4x or 12x for precise quick focus.
              It is so accurate and quick and easy that I do not miss the use of AF on this lens at all.
              This I do on a tripod at either 800, 1320, or 1600mm with appropriate adapters.
              For handheld…with a simple rid I have made… I use my 150-600 and autofucus..great for birds in flight.

              The a7rii is the only camera I know of with focus peaking, and this is the most amazing manual focus tool ever created…!!!!!

              And you are correct…Sony lens selection sucks…fortunately I can use non Sony lanses, and almost all my lenses are non-Sony.

              You accused me earlier of being a Sony fan…I am no-ones fan, I have both good and bad stuff to say about everyone.

              FYI..I have my eye on a recent patent for a Canon 200-600 f4.8-5.6.

            • Thom Hogan

              Right. So your idle boast was just that.

              Funny how you fan boys consistently distort your actual position to fit your beliefs.

            • animalsbybarry

              I am no ones fan boy..I have both good and bad things to say abought everyone…And I buy what meets my needs…not what you challenge me to buy.

            • D700s

              I’m seriously doubting you even own a camera.

            • animalsbybarry

              You doubt I own a camera…and I suppose you expect me to prove it too you…grow up!

        • Tony Beach

          “A6300 af performans surpassed dslr”

          Then you have used both?

        • verytoxic

          Global Warming is actually becoming easier to deny because none of the GW predictions have ever come true. The doom and gloom efforts to scare the public about global catastrophes due to GW have not come to fruition. This pisses off idealoques who continue to preach doom and gloom. If you take Al Gore’s words seriously, according to him the coastal cities were supposed to be under water last year. If you are not going to keep your GW prophets accountable for failing to predict anything correct about GW, then don’t hold people accountable for denying it. Despite all the GW propaganda messages for 25 years, only 10% of American believe in GW. That’s an abysmal failure on the part of propagandists to convince the general public that Global Warming is real. Maybe you care about GW, but 99% of the people do not wake up each morning worrying about it. As far as evolution is concerned, the debate still goes on. Creationists are experiencing shortage in finding evolutionsts to debate. When evolution is put to the test in a real debate, it loses every time. Just watch Kent Hovind.

          • animalsbybarry

            I said there were people like you out there, and you have proven my point.
            I will not debate you, and you will indeed find a shortage of people to debate because you will believe only what you want to believe regardless of any amount of evidence put before you.
            And by the time you believe in global warming..if ever … it will be far far far too late to do anything about it .

            And dslr will be just as dead, with or without you believing it.

            • D700s

              You can’t debate anyone. You have nothing to stand on. You just blather opinions.

            • animalsbybarry

              What rock did you crawl out from under?

          • animalsbybarry

            An incredible number of factors must come together for Earth to support life as we know it.
            We have never discovered any other planet that can do so.
            Yet amazingly peaople neglect that and have absolutely no concern that we can destroy that delicate balence.
            When we destroy the only planet we can live on do you expect someone to ” create” another one and transport us there…???

            • 24×36

              Destroy the planet?! LMAO you’ve GOT to be kidding. GW is just the latest boogyman governments use to relieve people of their freedom and money. The GHE is nonsense, and the idea of a “run away GHE” is truly laughable. It didn’t happen when we had 10x as much CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Observation trumps theory.

            • animalsbybarry

              No one knows for certain what the consequences of global warming will be…no one!..
              Two extremely alarming and recently discoverd indications of what may happen are..high concentrations of trapped methane in the currently melting icecaps
              And absorption of most of the man made heat by the oceons.
              Why this is so alarming is technical and if you want to know more you can read on it on your own.
              But as to the consequences of global warming we can only look at prehistric examples.
              The most recent and mild example is the
              Holocene Climate Optimum
              About 9 million years ago.
              The results were devastating climate changes…more than enough to totally disrupt cicilization as we know it…but it was not a world killer event , and the planet recovered very quickly.
              The most extreme and devestating example was 246 million years ago

              This one resulted in the extinction of 96% of all marine species and over 75% of all terrestrial vertibrate families
              Clearly a world killer by any standards.

              Several other intermediate examples exist.

              So while no one knows for certain what will happen it is reasonable to expect something betwween the mildest example that occurred 9 million years ago, and the most extreme example 246 million yers ago.

              Even the most mild example would be devestating if it occurred today.

              Check up on the Holocene Climate Optimum….as this is the most mild example of global warming we know of, and probably the best we can hope for.

              People will not give up the things that are will continue to intensify global warming, and we are very close to the point were global warming will become self perpetuating regardless of what we do.

              But if you read about past global warming events you will have a reasonable expectation of what to expect…to assume it is nothing to worry about however is totally unreasonable.

            • 24×36

              There IS no “man made heat!” You’re still assuming things for which there is NO evidence! What we do, or don’t do, will not “intensify global warming,” because we didn’t “cause” it in the first place. And it will never “self perpetuate,” because it is not internally driven, it is externally driven.

            • animalsbybarry

              You and others like you are in denial .
              There is plenty of evidence, but you will dismiss any and all evidence because that is what denial is

              And you have invented government conspiracies and “Boogeymen” to support your denial.
              But there is even less evidence of your conspiracy, and more importantly no motive…why would the government, the worlds leading scientists, and an international confrence of 150 nations conspire to make you believe in a non existant global warming.

              Perhaps we should…like you dismiss all this as ” no” evidence and believe you that this is all a worldwide conspiracy made up of all the worlds politicians, scientists and governments desighned to decieve you for some mystreous reason.
              Considering your obsesion that this is no proof …where is your proof?

              I will mot succeed in convincing you, no one will, because you will cling to what you choose to believe no matter what…perhaps when you are gone you will believe…no , then you will be unable to believe anything.

            • 24×36

              No, you and those pushing AGW myths are in denial. Nature is in control of the Earth’s climate, not man. Every prediction of the AGW doomsayers has been wildly incorrect any time their predictions don’t go far enough into the future to not have occurred yet. If you’re naive enough to believe there is no motivation to prop up the AGW BS story, you have a lot to learn. And BTW, I don’t have to disprove that which has yet to be proven. The Earth’s climate has gone through ice ages and hot house periods, ALL without any humans to have even “contributed” to it, so the null hypothesis remains that climate changes are naturally driven until PROVEN otherwise. “Because I said so” doesn’t cut it. Explain away ice ages that occurred with TEN TIMES today’s CO2 level. Where was the “runaway greenhouse effect” then?! Observation trumps theory.

            • Allen_Wentz

              @24×36: Wow. You use the word observation yet you deny the application of the scientific method by thousands of smart scientists around the world. AGW is real.

              Just in one human lifetime the world population has tripled from ~2.x billion to ~7.x billion, most living unsustainably. Look up the word “sustainable.” Only idiots and other right-wingnuts fail to do the math.

            • Jeepmeister

              The so-called scientists you champion have NOT been using the scientific method at all, and therein lies the problem. AGW is not real, and the state of “climate science” is a joke.

            • animalsbybarry

              There is absolutely no point in trying to convince those like you…no amount of proof will convince you until long after the damge is done, and you will then still deny it.
              Which is of coarse exactly what I said in my first comment to you.
              So you yourself are proof that I am correct and you are wrong
              I am sure it will upset you to know you yourself are proving yourself wrong, and I am sure you will adamently deny it..but the world niether depends upon or waits for you to believe.

            • animalsbybarry

              ” there is no man made heat”
              Because I hve no evidence to convince you
              And all the heat from billions of gallons of fuel we burn every year do not exist iether, because I am sure if they existed you would believe.

            • neversink

              Tens of thousands of independent scientists have concluded global warming and climate change is here and caused by humans. The anti-global warming idiots are the ones creating the conspiracy theories. If you want to deny the truth, go ahead. By the way, I am far rom a liberal, but I trust scientists more than I do politicians on either side. Independent verified research on global warming by thousands of scientists has proven the Earth is experiencing human-caused climate change. IN fact, many corporations also admit that global warming is here. It is not a theory any more — Global Warming is a fact. I don’t care if you are a naive liberal or an inflexible conservative, you can deny the truth but you can’t change the truth.

            • Jeepmeister

              I haven’t denied any “truth” because the scientists you champion haven’t proven a damned thing. I agree with scientists that disagree with those you champion. You’re still doing nothing more than “appealing to authority,” which doesn’t prove anything scientifically. I trust scientists too – just not the ones you do, who have lost any sense of scientific objectivity and have become more activists than scientists. The “scientific consensus” was once that the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the Sun orbited around it. We all know how well that one stood the test of time. “AGW” will look similarly laughable when the state of climate science advances beyond its embarrassing infancy. “Consensus” or “prevailing points of view” mean absolutely nothing in science, it is in fact those who disagree with “consensus” views that advance science.

            • How did those scientists lose “any sense of scientific objectivity”?

              In any case, just for my education, what do you disagree exactly with?

              – that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas?
              – that due to humans the proportion of CO₂ in atmosphere has significantly increased (from 280ppmv to 400ppms)?
              – the corelation between CO₂ content and global temperature?

              Looking forward to your reply.

            • Jeepmeister

              Let’s switch the dialogue, and see how you do with these logical problems:

              How do you explain that the only thing needed to explain Venus vs. Earth temperature AT THE SAME ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE is the DISTANCE FROM THE SUN

            • OK, so you avoid simple questions, I see. You can’t answer yes/no these three? Please answer my questions if you want to continue the discussion.

              As to your questions:

              1) Completely false. No difference? So you’re disagreeing that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas? Please answer this question. Is or isn’t CO₂ a greenhouse gas? It if is, how could atmospheric pressure explain everything, if it isn’t, please explain your rationale.

              Venus is a runaway greenhouse scenario, exactly because 95% CO₂.

              2) I do not “account” for that, as I never heard of that before. All graphs and data I’ve see show that they progress in lock-step, because the significant forcing effect of CO₂.

              3) We do not know that _all_ CO2 emissions are from human sources. But we certainly can model how much emissions we have and we do emit _a lot_, compared to natural sources. Otherwise, CO₂ would have not started increasing right around the industrial revolution.

            • Jeepmeister

              1. Completely true. If you looked at the physicist’s blog I linked, you’ll see that the only thing needed to account for the Venus vs. Earth temperature when the atmospheric pressure is the same is the distance from the Sun. So no “greenhouse effect” dictates temperature. Observation trumps theory. Venus is not a “runaway greenhouse effect,” it’s temperature is high because of its extreme atmospheric pressure.

              If a “greenhouse effect” existed, or in particular if a “runaway greenhouse effect” existed, explain why Earth failed to experience one when it had seven THOUSAND ppm CO2 in the past? What hindered the great “heat trapping” ability of CO2 then?! The Eco-Nazis talk about us reaching “tipping points” in the HUNDREDS of ppm, it’s truly laughable. We’ve had ice ages with TEN TIMES the CO2 of today’s atmosphere. So CO2 levels CLEARLY do not dictate Earth’s temperatures. Again, observation trumps theory.

              2. Vostok ice core data very plainly shows temperature changes happen first, with a 700-800 year time lag for resulting CO2 changes. CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes, up AND down. That’s on shorter time scales for recent (last several hundred thousand years) period. Geocarb temperature vs. CO2 over hundreds of millions of years shows essentially no relationship between CO2 and temperature. Short term result is reflective of CO2 solubility in water (oceans, in particular). But in no case is CO2 shown to be a “driver” of temperature except in theoretical fantasy.

              3. A LOT compared to natural sources?! LOL human emissions account for a few percentage points, natural emissions for ALL the rest. As for the CO2 levels increasing starting at the IR, an old scientific saying comes to mind – “Correlation does not equal causation.”

            • 1. I looked at that blog, and I looked at blogs that reply to that. I don’t want to discuss Venus because that’s a different case, but please note that nobody says Earth is in any danger of runaway greenhouse scenario. The problem that exists today is that a stable (non-runaway) increase of 5°C is enough to significantly disrupt the economy and livehood of a significant portion of the population.

              2. That is simple. CO₂ is not the trigger for temperature increases, the Milankovitch cycle is. However, once the initial temperature has increased, a feedback effect brings more CO₂ in atmosphere which in turn increases the temperature much more than just due to the
              Milankovitch cycle. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm fore more details.

              3. OK, let’s say human emissions are 2%. Before the industrial age, the natural sources and sinks were in balance, so adding 2% per year means that in 50 years we double the CO₂. *DOUBLE*. Is that not significant?

              And finally, I kindly ask you for the third time, can you please answer yes/no this simple question: is CO₂ a greenhouse gas or not?

          • HF

            What a nonsense.

          • PhilK

            The earth has been around for millions of years. Humans have wreaked more environmental destruction on it in a few hundred years than happened in the previous 100’s of thousands of years.

            Just because your pinhole-view of your puny lifespan doesn’t see the sky falling in 20 years doesn’t mean that anthropomorphic destruction isn’t occurring. In fact there’s a good chance that scientists will agree to name the current geological epoch “anthropocene” for precisely that reason, since the effects of this period of human destruction are predicted to be detectable in geologic formations for millions of years into the future.

            But don’t let any of that get in the way of your preconceived notions.

            • D700s

              Aren’t you the one with preconceived notions? You are either very young or an old liberal.

            • PhilK

              As Popeye would say, I yam what I yam! 😀

              The nice thing about science, is that its basic premise revolves around constantly proving previous conclusions wrong, in the process of expanding the body of knowledge. It’s like an anti-dogma filter. 🙂

            • 24×36

              Which is how the whole AGW propaganda will be swept away, eventually. In particular since the people pushing AGW scare stories haven’t “proven” a damn thing.

            • 24×36

              Don’t let your Eco-Nazi predispositions allow you to do any actual investigation of the politically motivated tripe you laughingly accept as “science.”

          • neversink

            You are obviously not a geologist nor a climatologist nor a geographer — for 99 percent of these scientists say that global warming is here. The giant ice melts in the Arctic and Antarctic are occurring at a pace never before witnessed. It’s really climate change that is occurring and the trend is warming. Creationists are not scientists, they believe in fiction.

      • Hardcore_Fanboy

        agree with that + mirorless these days are almost as big and heavy as DSLR. and newest sony G-star lenses are exactly as heavy and even little larger than DSLR equvivalent (those looks like normal DSLR lens + adapter merged in one) – so mirrorless main PR jingle like: “clumsy, heavy dslr and teir lenses to log around ?? no thx – take mirroless and travell light” is a thing of a past

        • RodneyKilo

          Mirrorless cameras was the answer from manufacturers who tried and crashed and burned in the DSLR space- Olympus, Fuji, Sony… If they had been successful in the original space, they would never have bothered with mirrorless.
          “Mirrorless” is their marketing mantra to differentiate itself. The promise to customers was that “mirrorless” would mean smallness.
          The promise to themselves is that they could save a whole lot of money in components and manufacturing, since there is no mirror or reflex viewing mechanism, and their lenses no longer need to be so optically corrected as do DSLR lenses.
          In other words, it was marketing- make the product cheaper to produce, but never pass the savings on to the customers. Then call DSLRs bad, in a sour grapes sort of way.

          • Thom Hogan

            Go back and read what I wrote in 2009: the mirrorless “revolution” was a classic Ries and Trout repositioning attempt. If you can’t be #1 or #2 in a market, invent a sub-market that you can be #1 in.

            • 24×36

              Yup, as I’ve said before, MILCs are not and have never been about “innovation;” they are more an act of “desperation.”

        • Singani Mamiya

          An A7-series camera can be as small as a Nikon 1 with a 35/2.8 or 55/1.8, yet it has more imaging power than a D810. And you can attach a professional 2.8 zoom if your job requires it. That’s the beauty of the system, that seems to be hard to understand for some.

          • AYWY

            I believe we know the advantages. But not keen with the price of those native lenses, not enthusiastic about spending even more money buying adapters (that goes into real ownership cost), and then getting inferior AF performance compared to using it on the camera it was built for.
            Like, “you spent all that money, made the supposedly small package even bigger, just so you can get worse AF then when using it on the actual native body? And those native lens are still super-expensive after they stamped ‘Zeiss’ on it!”
            Yes I can talk about this, because I was a Sony user who went through and thought long and hard about these things. 😉

          • Riley Escobar

            Don’t see how that’s possible as the Nikon 1 bodies are smaller than any generation A7. Lenses are even smaller (disregarding aperture equivalence).

            • Singani Mamiya

              An A7/R/S + 35/2.8 has roughly the size of a V1 + kit-lens.

            • Riley Escobar

              Your definition of “roughly” must be different from mine 🙂

              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1defbbfd8a0f6eddee24b10a2c7bb14acfea6f7ecc42e3a5b2f56b40d04f8cac.jpg

              And from what I can see, the Sony 35mm f/2.8 is 61.5×36.5mm while the Nikon 10-30mm PD is 58x28mm (probably collapsed, I’ll grant you that). Again, a different definition of “roughly.” But they’re not comparable as Nikon doesn’t have a 35mm-equivalent prime CX lens.

            • Singani Mamiya

              You are comparing it wrong! 😉
              http://j.mp/23VyNQ1

              If you own an A7 and really feel the need to buy a Nikon V1 to have a more compact alternative, then okay, this point goes to you! 😉 Mine just catched dust, after I had the Sony.

        • John Picking

          And expensive!

    • Eric Calabros

      If you believe “high priced FF mirrorless” or “DX mirrorless without lenses” make them survive, just add all the Sony sales to Nikon sales and see what happens. Nothing. They just replace Canon as #1 in market share, while we will read “unit sales down %10” every quarter, again.

    • Jbo

      Mirrorless is still only 2% of the market so reduced DSLR sales are not simply down to everyone switching

    • RodneyKilo

      The death of the DSLR has been proclaimed constantly for the last 8 years.
      Each new generation of mirrorless proclaims how much better its EVF is- better being defined as less laggy, more resolution, less delay and tearing… in other words, quality being defined by how closely it matches SLR viewing of 40 years ago.
      Each new generation of mirrorless constantly proclaims itself the fastest autofocus ever- the D6000, the X-E2, the X100, the X-T1. If only they focused as quickly as the lowly Nikon consumer DSLRs.

      Don’t keep telling us and telling us how the DSLR is dead. Deliver a superior product and people will flock to it naturally.

      It’s not an ideological imperative, despite the interweb echo chamber.

      • animalsbybarry

        Sony has all the pieces it needs to really bebome a powerhouse camera manufacturer.
        It is only the totally incompetent management that has prevented them from putting those pieces together, and the complete lack of Sony marketing that has held back Sony sales.
        How long can Nikon count on Sony continuing to make the same mistakes?
        Especially when Canikon fans keep boasting about exactly what those mistakes are.
        If Sony really wants to take away Canikon marketshare all they need to do is listen to the Canikon fans complaints about what they are doung wrong.

        • RodneyKilo

          Arguably Sony had the same tools 10+ years ago, when it inherited the Minolta and Konica-Minolta DSLR brands and was instantly the third largest interchangeable lens digital camera manufacturer. It’s A100, released 10 years ago, was innovative with built-in image stabilization, and sold at a very attractive price vs Nikon and Canon.
          Sony was doing everything right, especially in the era of soaring digital camera sales, but it still couldn’t penetrate, so it had to punt and regroup. The barriers of entry seem to be stronger than we think at first.

          • animalsbybarry

            Sony never got it right…they have always used leading cutting edge technology, but never put it together into a coherent system with all the parts working together.
            Sony grows fabulous trees, but is completely unable to grow a forrest.

    • Thom Hogan

      Maybe because it won’t change their destiny at the moment.

      If Canon and Nikon could overnight swap all their DSLRs for mirrorless models that performed exactly the same, it wouldn’t change anything except perhaps some costs to Canon and Nikon. While both companies want cost reduction, they don’t want it so bad that they’re going to spend huge sums on R&D and marketing to make such a shift, even if such a shift were possible at the pro level.

      Note that neither Canon nor Nikon is losing any significant market share to mirrorless. Basically you have two players fighting over 9.7m units a year, and seven players fighting over 3.3m units a year, and Canon and Nikon are in both those groups.

      • Exactly, while I think Nikon does need a better mirrorless solution, we should talk about this again in 5 years and see which company did make the right/better decision.

        • Thom Hogan

          In five years we’re likely to be at the same place we were in 1998: two companies with the majority of the market share, one with a meaningful portion of the market share, the rest being sustained by other aspects of their company.

          The question is whether any of the above will be at the forefront of the next true revolution, as Nikon was with the D1 in 1999 and Sony was with the compact digital camera throughout the 90’s.

          • Allen_Wentz

            I would suggest that the next true revolution has already started, and that it involves COMMUNICATING captured images. The folks at Nikon and Canon so far have had no clue. I am anxious to see how well (or how half-assed, as in all past Nikon attempts) the D500 and D5 communicate images.

            • Thom Hogan

              I’ve been suggesting that publicly for eight years now: communicating, programmable, modular.

  • T.I.M

    I told my wife about Nikon’s low sales, that made her cry (she is Asian).
    So she agreed for me to buy two D5 + 3 SB910 + the 24mm f/1.4 (I have a manual f/3.5 24mm PC-E)
    I hope that will help Nikon with its financial difficulties.
    Thank you Peter, you’re my best friend (right after the guy who tiped me about the D30x30)

    • fanboy fagz

      respect to u and ur wife.

      I bought their selfie stick and their dog cam mount but I dont think theyre the reasons why theyre down so hard.

      were they able to pay off ashton kutcher?

    • Why SB910 and not the SB5000? (joke, if not clear)

      • T.I.M

        For medical reasons (don’t ask, it would take hours to explain).
        To make it simple, I need the same tools (same cameras, same flashes)

        • neversink

          You can use the 5000 easily with the 910 – No Problem….

    • neversink

      My wife’s African. I don’t need her permission to buy anything. She’s fine with it. However, she won’t pay for it. So please, can we exchange wives until my two new D5 cameras and my 800mm lens is paid for. Thanks.

  • PizzaKing

    Nikon is the sub in a g@ngbang. Canon and Sony are the big dikk-swingers, Oly and Pana waiting for their turn.

  • Richard Krawec

    One thing holds true with any company or product – public perception .

  • TheMeckMan

    Canon may not have a pro mirrorless yet, but we’re seeing all the components of one (i.e. 70D and 7Dii dual pixel AF that’s now in the 1Dx). I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not testing their mirrorless tech in DSLRs. They also published a patent for a DSLR that can go into “mirrorless” mode. Should be interesting to see what comes of it.

    • Shutterbug

      Canon’s dual pixel AF is nowhere near the level of a good PDAF system, let alone the on-sensor PDAF on the Sony and Nikon 1 series cameras – it has a long way to go if anyone is going to be replacing their DSLR with a hypothetical Canon mirrorless, but I hope both Nikon and Canon get there one day. A more difficult task, IMHO, will be making an EVF look good. Even the very best EVF’s have noticeable lag and look like garbage in low light – getting DR to match the human eye and flawless ISO performance with no loss of DR into extreme ranges for the EVF is going to be a the biggest challenge I think.

      • HF

        No, the newest EVFs (Leica, A7rii, for example) easily hold their own. In low light you don’t see much through your D810 VF. The lag is only there for highest frame continuous shooting. The A6300 seems to have improved here, too.

        • Tim Burke

          No, heard it all before. The reality never comes close to the hype.

          • HF

            Nonsense. We use them professionally and the newest EVF are more than good enough. The discussion reminds me on religion. If you prefer one over the other since you prefer certain features, that’s fine. But simple putting out simplistic exaggerations doesn’t help.

            • Tim Burke

              I’m not exaggerating when I say I’ve heard it all before – I really have. You are right that it’s like a religion, I just think yours is stupid.

            • HF

              Hearing and using are two different things. We all know, that they weren’t up to the task of Olympic sports. However, a Nx1 is extremely good already and it only gets better. Using both system for me combines the best from both worlds. As to your last comment, just childish.

        • Shutterbug

          I have looked through both EVF’s, and neither are anywhere near an OVF, not even in the same world, in dim or high contrast lighting. Lag was still obvious as well, at least for me. I have no problems with an OVF even in dim lighting, nor should anyone else unless they have eye issues, in which case an argument could be made for the EVF. I have never had a problem using an OVF down to the point where AF fails, and the shot becomes pointless due to it being completely dark.

          For EVF’s to be as good as an OVF they need:
          1) ZERO lag
          2) Completely invisible pixels in all situations
          3) Basically flawless noise performance up to crazy levels
          4) DR that matches the human eye at every ISO, up to extreme levels

          EVFs have other advantages, like focus peaking, they aren’t all bad – but OVF die hards won’t be changing anytime soon.

          So far not a single one of those conditions is met by even the very best mirrorless cameras. They have a long way to go IMHO.

          • HF

            My criteria are much less stringent than yours. Lag is only an issue for me if shooting action, which I hardly do. The rest is very good with the newest VF and a matter of preference, as I deem them good enough for professional use for “most” photographic situations. Whenever I want to, I pick up the D810. No problems getting back and forth.

    • Piotr Kosewski

      Actually you’re wrong.
      As far as mirrorless technology goes, Nikon is way closer to the switch and has been for years. AF in N1 bodies is among the fastest and with best tracking abilities. N1 bodies have little EVF lag or blackout during continuous shooting – something other manufacturers are still struggling with.
      Now it seems they have a stepping motor efficient enough for large lenses (although the AF-P lenses are clearly delayed to be released with a new body).

      What they don’t have is a large sensor production facility. They would need one to manufacture a sensor for a mass produced camera. That’s why many of us where thrilled by the rumored cooperation with Samsung.
      But hey… let’s wait and see who makes the chip inside the D500…

      As for the Canon’s dual pixel AF – it’s not fast enough and never will be as good as normal on-sensor PDAF. All because it is built around the actual sensor and its signal. It’s fine for movies (where you need slow and smooth focusing), but is limited just like Panasonic’s DFD.

      Traditional on-sensor PDAF uses a separate circuit with much higher refresh rates. They can work just like the dedicated PDAF in DSLRs. While a dedicated AF module will always be faster and better in low light, the PDAF sensors in general are developing very quickly. Soon we’ll agree that on-sensor PDAF is good enough and we will sacrifice the advantages of a mirror.

      • Thom Hogan

        Nikon doesn’t need a large sensor production fab. First, fabs for hire are readily available these days. Second, Nikon’s total ILC sensor needs are only 6m units a year. That’s not a large number to produce.

  • dclivejazz

    Nikon seems to have some success cutting costs but otherwise it was a brutal quarter. Whew.

  • Wade Marks

    The problem is not with Nikon or Canon or any one company; that’s just a way for people to be negative for the sake of being negative.

    The problem is the shrinking market for dedicated cameras. The advent of the smartphone has decimated the camera market and will continue to do so. Ironically, more people are taking more photos than ever before, it’s just with their smartphones. And the smartphone camera tech will get better and better; there are already rumors of Apple using a dual lens camera in their next iPhone which will increase performance even mores.

    But those who just use this data to bash Nikon are being either foolish or dishonest.

    • nightoil

      In 1888, George Eastman said: “You Press the Button, We Do the Rest.” That’s still EXACTLY what 99% of the world’s “photographers” want. (The quotes denoting my elitism – as a “serious” Nikon photographer of *many* decades!)

      99% of today’s photographers only ever view their images on a smartphone screen. Their photographs are simply an ephemeral record of events, places or themselves in an ever-accelerating present. Who needs DSLR quality? The concept of a print is rapidly vanishing. Who is even aware of the possibility of messing around for hours or even minutes in photo editing software with raw files, levels, curves, gamma, masks, layers, USM, HDR etc?

      I, on the other hand, stuck in the fast receding world of Capture NX2, just bought possibly the last brand new, boxed D300S in the UK. Crazy? Probably. Yes, I’ve got a D800. Yes, that’s a fabulous camera. But in terms of the great intangible of outright image quality (NOT meaning pixel quantity, high ISO capability etc), I keep returning to the D300S.

      For landscape, streetscape, blightscape, shards of light on blank walls etc, it can’t be bettered (IMO). Just has such beautifully crunchy, honest colour rendition. Such a homely camera – with the wonderfully reassuring slow motion ker-phlunk of its ancient-sounding mirror-shutter sequence. Like music, warms the heart. Almost 19th century!

      Maybe pure photography is going the way of classical music, jazz, rock ‘n roll, vinyl, books, the ability to walk in bright air sans phone glued to ear. Maybe it’s becoming purely a medium of personal contemplation. (And what a great one at that.)

      My gratitude and condolences to Nikon, Canon, Pentax et al (and, more immediately, Samsung).

      • whisky

        the next disruptive force in photography must require artists to redefine what to do with photographs. it has to be artists, as they’re the only ones equipped to deconstruct the status quo. others are typically more technical being led by the pied piper of more pixels, more modularity, better IQ, better interface, better wireless, better AF, and in general — “better betterness”.

        this is blindingly routine. routine in the sense that the audience has already become desensitzed to this form of stimulation in a world awash with photos. JMO.

        • PhilK

          Ehh, the artists and hipsters are already doing that, by using cheesy $30 plastic film cameras with light-leaks and fuzzy lenses.

          ‘scuse me if I’m not personally prepared to board that ship..

          • silmasan

            Hyperboles.

          • whisky

            that’s not disruptive. it’s simply aping another medium.

            • PhilK

              Well.. it was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment to balance the “artists will save us” stance. 😉

              I understand what the Lomographers are trying to do – it’s valid – but it’s become a stupid hipster lifestyle thing now, tainting the whole idea.

        • nightoil

          A bit of a non-sequitur but David Hockney has been a disruptor with his photo collages.
          http://www.shootingfilm.net/2013/01/joiners-polaroid-collages-by-david.html

          David Bowie was another disruptor – an artist / stylist far ahead of his time. Gained enough traction in his early career to leverage change way into the future: e.g. the current loosening of gender identity.

          Lazarus – what an incredible exit – example to us all. Profound stylist right to the end – we need more like him.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-JqH1M4Ya8

          Just some random thoughts!

  • ArtM

    I am not surprised by these numbers. The world economy is in a slump. China’s economy is in the pits, the US economy at 2% growth is half of what it should be. The price of oil is a good indicator of the health of the world economy. Things could be a lot better!

    • Remember “drill baby, drill”? Well, we did and now you’re complaining that cheap oil is an indicator of a weak global economy? I don’t know about you, but I like filling up my car for less than $40. I would think that would leave more money in folk’s pockets with which to buy cameras. Evidently not.

      • PhilK

        Oil prices are just one bright spot amongst a lot of other economic problems. The reality is, the distribution of wealth is such that with such a huge concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid, the average working stiff over the last 20-30 years has been getting poorer and poorer relative to the cost of living. At least in the USA.

        • nwcs

          The hidden inflation caused by the rapid and unfettered overproduction of money hasn’t helped. Even so any of us on this board live better than kings in ages past and greater than most people worldwide.

          • neversink

            Absolutely right. People in rural Kenya are lucky if they make $3 a day. And Kenya is the third wealthiest economy in Africa. Corruption is the name of the game here.

        • Amen. “Commodity workers” need government support in the form of a better minimum wage. But the politicians who are so eager to prop up the oil companies won’t do the same for labor. It would really help the economy to have more people capable of consuming.

          • PhilK

            Instead, we have ultra-billionaires like Gates and Buffett and Ellison who are the public face of the asset-stripping of the economy by the uber-wealthy class, spending money on pet projects to burnish their personal image instead of allowing the democratic government to spend some of that in ways that benefit the society as a whole.

            China of course has been an exploding market for consumer products in recent years but I don’t know what’s going on over there right now, I see a lot of gloom and doom predictions. India was another big hope but when 60% of the population doesn’t have access to a flushing toilet, I doubt they’re going to be buying a lot of D810s and D500’s. 😉

            Nikon’s expansion into the action-camera market is a sign that they are not completely stuck in the mud there, I hope we see more of the same. I wish they could come up with some kind of partnership to get a piece of the smartphone juggernaut, but unfortunately I think the margins are such that if they’re going to get a penny per phone or something to give the manufacturers the right to co-brand with Nikon, I doubt it would be worth it.

            • As often happens in history, Nikon was able to ride a wave and now it’s gone back to the sea. The digital point $ shoot era has come and gone. I worked for a bit as a contractor for a start up that duplicated CDs. So, you could put your promotional materials on one, send it to these guys and they would make 10,000 copies with graphics on them. It was supposed to be a growth industry, and it was…for about 20 minutes.

            • PhilK

              Well, I’d imagine if they got in early it was a _bit_ more than 20 minutes. 😉

              I was working in the audio/home electronics business around the time when the compact disc was introduced in 1982. It was a huge growth engine in audio and home electronics (and later data storage) for many years. DAT would have further carried that into the recording side before recordable CDs were available, but politics killed that and it was relegated to a minor role as data storage instead.

      • 24×36

        Hey I’m with you on the cost of gasoline, but the simple truth is many are already pleased as punch with the camera or cameras they already own.

        • Yeah, there’s that, too. I mean, I pay my bills with photography and am still shooting a D300s most of the time. It’s fine for what I do. Used for six years now…240,000 clicks and no repairs.

      • neversink

        Most people love their iPhone or Galaxy phone cameras. They don’t need anything else. Here in Kenya the price of gas hasn’t gone down because the politicians own the oil cartels. Corruption is the name of the game. Cheap oil is good for the economy. Cheap oil is the oil recovery, expensive oil is the bubble. The same thing with real estate. The bust was the recovery, but the realtors and Wall Street all want an energy and real estate bubble with their low-interest rates and Fed printing press. I remember when my father got 10 percent on CDs…. That was also good for the economy. The Fed is ruled by the stock market. It will all go bust sooner or later.

        • When you buy a stock, someone sold it.

  • MonkeySpanner

    If you want to get the public excited about buying a camera then you have to offer something different than the same old thing you have done for 50 years.

  • PizzaKing

    1DX II ist der Schwanz in Nikons Arsch

  • Russell Ferris

    645 is where the money is, 35mm is a cheap format anyone can get into. I haven’t paid for anything from Nikon new and can probably be blamed partly for their demise.

    • nwcs

      645 is the poor mans medium format. 6×6 and above is where it’s at. Anything else is an effort in futility.

      • Michiel953

        LoL! We all live such futile lives. Well, at least I do.

    • PhilK

      The market for such products is infinitesimal. Even if the margins are high, the likelihood of recovering your R&D and production expenses are another matter, and I don’t think any company is getting rich in that segment, most of them probably have to subsidize it with profits from other businesses.

    • neversink

      Funny – My clients have been very happy with my images from the Nikon D4 and D800 and before that the D3s and the D700 (the latter which I still use on occasion.

  • PhilK

    Yes, since grey marketeers are basically opportunists who only bother with items in high demand.

  • Petr Cech

    dumping Nikon :((((((( need something lighter

    • PhilK

      Have fun. 🙂

    • AlphaTed

      Have fun with your smart phone.

  • I didn’t ask about Venus (although, why does the first article care whether Carl Sagan used marijuana or not? Is that how they support their argument).

    I asked three simple questions. Is CO₂ a greenhouse gas? Do humans emit enough CO₂ that we have almost doubled the CO₂ proportion? Is there a correlation between average global temperature and CO₂ content?

    Simple questions.

  • Back to top