Dpreview interview with Nikon: “we’ll keep doing what we’re doing”

nikon-at-photokina-2016-2
Today Dpreview published their interview with Nikon at Photokina and as the editor mentioned in the comments, Nikon's answer on the future of the DSLR (and few other questions) appears to be "we'll keep doing what we're doing". Here are few other quotes that just confirm this statement:

"We don’t want to change our policy, we will keep offering the best DSLR to the customer."

"The Nikon 1 concept is fit for some customers, for now we’ll keep Nikon 1 as usual."

"Some manufacturers have tried to enter the DSLR market with their mirrorless camera or something. Our standpoint is different. Because our product mix covers full-frame and APS-C DSLR and the Nikon 1, these three product categories mean we offer to the full lineup and we receive each customer’s good reactions."

Pictures credit: Photokina

This entry was posted in Nikon 1 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Kyle

    I’m sure those are just general blanket statements.

    On the other hand, could be content to let Sony and Panasonic rule the mirror less world.

    • ZoetMB

      And let Canon and Sony rule the video world? In a declining market, if you target just one or two slices, those are pretty small slices.

      • David Peterson

        Agreed, I want to see Nikon make a Cinema Camera themselves!

        Something to target the C100/C300 and FS5/FS7

        • ZoetMB

          I think it’s too late for Nikon to address the high-end pro market because that requires a large systems approach. But I think they can still address the lower-end of the market – the still photographers whose clients want them to also shoot video and consumers who don’t want to carry multiple cameras.

          • David Peterson

            lol! Sorry, that was kinda funny 🙂 Because absolutely by no stretch of the imagination is a C100 or FS5 the “high end pro market”!!

            A Canon C100 is merely the small next step up that the zillions of Canon 5Dmk3 video shooters take (and a Canon 5Dmk3 shooter is on the extreme low end of the market).

            High end pro market means: Sony F55, RED Epic, Arri Alexa, Panasonic Varicam, etc (though a Sony or RED can still be picked as a “cheaper” option).

            Thus a Nikon equivalent of a C100/FS5 would be absolutely PERFECT next step for Nikon!

            And would make happy the thousands upon thousands of Nikon stills shooters who are dabbling their toes into low end video shooters and are feeling left out when they look over at their Canon or Sony stills shooting comrades.

            • Thom Hogan

              The question has been and continues to be what could Nikon bring to the dedicated video camera market.

              Long ago, Nikon was active in the ENG lens game, but not recently, so no lenses. Long ago, Nikon pioneered video in DSLRs, but they’ve pretty much maxed that out; anything more takes them into serious video. Long ago, Nikon lenses were (after mount modification) a staple in Hollywood, but that has disappeared. Long ago, Nikon was a pioneer in multi-camera syncing (e.g. the Bullet Time effects used in the matrix, but even though the WR-R10/T10 combo allows this easily, not many are using it.

              Thing is, for dedicated video now you need: raw output, an edit friendly compression (e.g. ProRes), focus peaking, zebra stripes, overscan markings, big battery, SDI, XLR, and a host of other things. How many of those does Nikon currently have in their design drawer?

              And then there’s lenses. Nikon didn’t fill out the CX or DX (buzz, buzz) lineups. They are now on a five-lens-a-year rate, so where are the lenses going to come from.

            • ΤΚ

              Very good points. They need to change their philosophy in video along with some other things like give some software updates (we live in the age of software), give video functions to help photographers shoot video as well. I feel so powerless with my nikon compared to other manufactures when it comes to video

          • Thom Hogan

            Note that their answers on that question indicate Nikon has indeed thought about a dedicated video camera. But Nikon seems in complete doubt as to how to proceed on either front. The fact that they pulled their booth at NAB this year is indicative that there’s no near term resolution on this at Nikon.

        • kbb

          You don’t want to see Nikon do a cinema product. Canon’s C series are bad enough, Nikon’s would be awful.

          • Melbar

            canons c series is nice.. you are just piss poor and have gear envy.

            • Athanasius Kirchner

              Wow, glad to see you kbb so well, are you family?

              The C-series is overpriced as f***. Sure, the quality is great, but the budget they demand is waaay beyond what many people can or will pay.

            • Daniel V

              Yes technically, but they had the Mojo, same as Nikon, I mean mostly colour science and ergonomics. Beyond all the tech spec advantage of the Sonys the Canon colour are so much better, as a Nikon user I would say that Nikon is even better. The Sony colours are ugly, skin tone are like zombies and even if it is 24p the motion cadence is just like video.

            • Athanasius Kirchner

              Erm, well, that’s quite relative. I find Nikon’s color output generally hideous. Canon’s nice, but tends too much toward orange for my taste. Sony, on the other hand, has never disappointed me – I don’t know why other people think their color science is screwed. In darker scenes it can get wonky, sure, but they’re hardly the only ones.

              Still, if we’re going to talk about bad color, Panasonic is, for me, the most egregious offender.

            • Daniel V

              Sincerely, I just can’t stand the green zombie like tint skin tone from the Sony’s and the motion cadence is like video. Most if not everyone likes the Nikon image except for the fact that the cameras always lag behind in terms of features. If they could just get at least a 10 bit output through hdmi and peaking it would have made a lot of difference. I just can’t understand there strategy, they want to go into markets like they have zero foothold while the video world has been begging for them to get at least a solid codec and if not good autofocus at least internal peaking. I just cannot understand how dumb their management are.

            • ΤΚ

              hm i think Sony a series tend to have a strange greenish tint, the result looks beautiful but still its not accurate.

            • Athanasius Kirchner

              I do agree that their files can use a little magenta push oftentimes, but for some reason I find that more desirable than the opposite (I *hate* magenta-tinged photos, I just do).

  • Nemmondom Meg

    I guess Microsoft had the same self-satisfied announcements in the beginning of mobile revolution, and now they have 1% on that market, struggling and mostly profiting from their server-side solutions. Does Nikon have other business what will keep them alive beside camera/lens?

    • ITN

      It is a good thing that there is no one company which dominates the whole IT market. The same is true for cameras and lenses: consumers benefit from having many different options, technologies, products and brands to choose from.

      • Bob Thane

        Of course, in some markets the competition is just for show, really. Like Intel has CPU’s locked down, and nVidea has GPU’s locked down. AMD has a small share of each, so it looks like they’re a competitor, but unless you have very little money and want to buy new AMD just isn’t in the running. We’re lucky that with cameras Nikon and Canon are remarkably close, plus we have a slew of other companies with unique advantages.

        • AMD was for a long while the only company to offer ECC memory support in mainstream mainboards (and with the RowHammer-type issues, this is not something to ignore); not sure if Intel has it today, as far as I know it’s still not widespread for non-server boards.

          So it might be that Nikon will keep having some niche advantages versus the others, which will keep their small but dedicated user base.

    • ZoetMB

      Microsoft still has the OS licensing and enterprise licensing of Office and other products, plus server solutions and SaaS services. So Microsoft is still a gigantic business without much mobile. Nikon has other businesses, but I believe they’re all far smaller than the imaging division, so there’s no parallel.

      • Nemmondom Meg

        ?? That is what i was writing, microsoft has its background, but nikon has no place to retreat. I think nikon has still few years, but only because the huge used lens market.

        • ZoetMB

          Well, you phrased it as a question, not necessarily a rhetorical one. At least that’s the way I interpreted it.

        • koenshaku

          If the Fuji GFX is priced in the range of the D5 or 1DX Mark II with the focus capabilities of Fuji X-T2 with an XDQ equivalent card accompanied with a fast buffer. Then yes both Canon and Nikon will go the way of the dinosaurs if they can’t adapt. Entering the mirrorless market late doesn’t benefit either company much especially when companies putting out medium format offerings on mirrorless.
          Many vendors can release good DSLR bodies, but reason it remains pretty much a two horse race is because of the lens portfolio from Canon or Nikon. They seem to only see themselves as rivals and if they both remain content with focusing on just the DSLR market it could be to their detriment.

    • Andrew

      Nikon’s hands are full and you haven’t even noticed. They have stuffed the D500 and D5 with so many goodies and now need to pilfer them down to the D810, D750, D7100, and then make a decision concerning the D610. And besides, we are still waiting for the new DL series.

      And don’t forget that we have great hopes for the P900 83x super-zoom replacement. And then they are working on the Df anniversary edition (no, not that notorious anniversary Windows 10 Version 1607 from Microsoft). So I concur with Nikon’s response, “we will keep doing what we were doing.” And we should also do likewise, keep saving to buy the next camera release, and maybe this time the Df 2 will be something special 😉

  • Piotr Kosewski

    Based on what happened in 2007, this should mean that new mirrorless lineup is almost ready. 😛

    That said, in 2007 most people reading this blog page where most likely learning to count, not taking photos… I’m getting old…

  • decentrist

    Mirrorless is a race to bottom of the commodity barrel. Leave that to Sony to pump out fast iterations of their last mistake.

    • nwcs

      How do you figure? You think the D3xxx and D5xxx series aren’t fast iterations racing to the bottom?

      • ITN

        Mirrorless ILC sales are going down almost as fast as DSLRs yet there are many more (in fact a growing number of) competitors that divide that small market. Most players in the mirrorless market are losing money on these products. It is not attractive for Nikon.

        • I agree 100% but I still think Nikon should offer a mirrorless solution, even if it is only the Nikon 1.

          • Thom Hogan

            Let me phrase this as clearly as I can put it: If Nikon is a camera company, then they need to have a consistent and clear product strategy for every potential customer.

            That includes action cam, transition-from-smartphone user cameras, serious compacts, mirrorless, and DSLR. It probably should include MF and video, too. All of those products should have a core set of brand-identifying traits, not be a mishmash of various styles, controls, features, etc. And each product line should be full and complete.

            Currently, 60% of Nikon’s sales and virtually all of their profit come from cameras. Are they a camera company?

            • Just Me

              How are you defining “need”? And who are you, or anyone for that matter (I’m not trying to single you out), to make such a proclamation? :-/

            • Mark M

              Probably someone who has forgotten more about Nikon and the industry than you’ll ever know.

            • Just Me

              His comments have historically related to his idea of how a business should be run (not necessarily wrong but not necessarily right for every company) and commenting on trends in the photography business. I can, and do usually, accept his comments regarding the latter. It’s his attitude regarding the former that I question.

              If that’s too complicated an answer, I’ll summarize: “Just cause you say it with conviction, it don’t mean shit to me.” ~48 Hours

            • nwcs

              This is one of those places where time will tell. Thom’s background and educated opinion is worth a lot more than others.

              We know a few things for certain: Nikon’s revenue and profits are down. Nikon’s ability to release products without some quality issues is suspect. Nikon’s customer service has rarely rated above passable and is decreasing in consumer opinion — as in you don’t see Nikon leading any JD Power surveys on quality or customer satisfaction or customer service.

              Those are not signs of a healthy company. If Nikon is perfectly content to just “keep doing what we’re doing” then it’s clearly going to mean more of the same.

              If you had a business degree background you’d probably see that it’s perfectly reasonable to comment on how businesses should be run — especially if someone has experience running businesses.

            • Just Me

              Disregarding my estimation of the value of a business degree, I will say that I don’t really care how their business is doing. I don’t care if they make a profit or not. And both of those things have the potential to affect me. My concern for the opinions of non-principals (in this case, pretty much every NR reader who comments on how Nikon should run their business) is somewhere between slim and none.

              To be honest, I question the sincerity of folks who spend equal time trashing an entity (Nikon in this case) and professing to be interested in their future.

            • nwcs

              Since you’re not concerned with our opinions why spend so much time engaged in discussion with us? And if people rely on Nikon for their business machines it does make sense to be concerned with the future of their company as it relates to service and support.

            • Just Me

              Your first point is excellent. I’m really just interested in the discussions regarding gear. Occasionally, out of boredom, I’ll read unrelated articles and rarely, out of disgust, I’ll reply to a comment that I find to be pretentious. We all have faults…that’s one of mine. 🙂
              As for the future of Nikon, if at some point their business decisions have too great a negative impact on my business, which I can’t imagine, I can switch to something else.

            • Thom Hogan

              Right. Basically you’re engaged in the exact same thing you accuse me of.

            • Just Me

              I have no idea what that means but you’re probably right. I have no shortage of faults and regularly verify that fact through words and deeds. 😉

            • Thom Hogan

              I have several decades of experience running multi-million dollar companies or businesses, and doing so well. I’d be the first one to admit that I have a very Silicon Valleyesque approach to business, but I’ve run more traditional multi-million dollar businesses, too (at Rodale, for example).

              The evidence is accumulating that something is clearly wrong at Nikon, and at both management and execution levels. That they’re losing market share in DSLRs when Canon isn’t is a canary in the coal mine. That they’re losing market share in mirrorless when Canon is growing market share is another canary. The DLs missing in action…the D800, D610, D750 recalls…the annoyances on the D500…SnapBridge not working as well as WMU…the list just goes on and on (and now includes KeyMission; I’ve gotten mine and I’m not impressed).

              As for attitude, I do not believe in pussyfooting around. My informed opinion is that there is something wrong at Nikon and it needs to be fixed. I am not alone on this belief. Even executives at other camera companies have expressed this thought to me, though in private or soto voce.

              Until someone proves otherwise to me, I’ll stand by my convictions and state them clearly and with the full ability I have to do so. Anything less is disingenuous.

            • Just Me

              My original statement wasn’t meant to be derogatory. You stated that “they need to have a consistent and clear product strategy for every potential customer.” Perhaps I read more into your statement than was intended. To me, it sounded like they not only should chase everyone who might take a picture (dSLR, mirrorless, P&S, camera phone, et. al.) but if they don’t, they’ll go out of business, based on your use of the word “need” and further supported by the statement, “Let me phrase this as clearly as I can put it…”, which implies some kind of omniscience. Don’t forget that the folks running Nikon can make the same statement of qualification as you have done.

              If I misinterpreted your statement, I apologize if you took offense. If not, while offense wasn’t intended, feel free to take it any way you like.

            • Thom Hogan

              I don’t take offense. Real debate is a contact sport.

              1. Define your customer.
              2. Define the problems your customers need solving.
              3. Solve them.

              Nikon isn’t really doing 1. Nor 2. For a subset of their customers they’re still doing 3 because of iterative updates on products that previously solved a problem. But those folk are a subset of “camera users.”

              Here’s Nikon’s clear problem: even with their recent attempt at diversification, they project that more than half of their sales and more than half of their profits will come from cameras and lenses as far out as anyone cares to project.

              Thus, more than any other company making cameras other than someone like Leica, Nikon is highly vulnerable to the changes that are happening in camera customers. If they continue to lose market share in a declining market, Nikon becomes a smaller and smaller company, and eventually marginal and niche.

              The recent KeyMission launch doesn’t have me very optimistic. The product strategy there is “enter the market last and don’t really innovate.” Oh, and they forgot that action cameras are highly dependent upon mounting. I’ll bet that most people who end up using a Nikon KeyMission will use a GoPro mount ;~). I know I will after examining Nikon’s offerings in that respect. Oops.

              Meanwhile, the 1″ compact market is…well empty of Nikon product for reasons unknown other than Nikon says they had a technical goof of some kind. Canon didn’t. Panasonic didn’t. Sony didn’t. And the bollix they’re perpetuating (“the DLs are designed for D800 users”) has to be the strangest product strategy I’ve heard for a compact camera.

              Mirrorless. Well, there strategy statement is they’ll stand pat, “for now.” Despite the fact that this is clearly not working.

              So add it all up. Who are the customers Nikon is chasing and why? What’s their strategy for winning them and why is that not working?

            • If we were talking about people instead of companies, Nikon looks like a burned out person, who doesn’t realise they’re burned out and need to reset themselves. They try this and that, and fail, because—being burned out/depressed—they’re not really tring, just chugging along until the next perfomance discussion with their manager, thinking to themselves they’re doing quite that bad.

              It was a good ride while it lasted, and I learned a lot from watching Nikon implode and from your comments Thom, thanks a lot.

            • Just Me

              I have neither the expertise or interest to debate your analysis of Nikon’s situation. I just think what any one, or company, wants to do is their business. I understand your, and others’, interest but a little humility would go a long way.
              Now if anyone here wants to actually talk about/debate photography and how Nikon’s offerings do/don’t address it in practical ways, I’m all in. 🙂
              I’m quite certain more knowledgeable and interested readers can address your points far better than I ever could.

            • El Aura

              Why do you think Nikon is loosing market share in DSLR and Canon isn’t? I don’t recall Canon DSLRs being much better than Nkon’s. They appear fairly even, maybe with a slight advantage in regard to sensors by Nikon and individual comparisons like 6D vs D750 where Nikon is clearly ahead, balanced out by Canon having a much better video AF. Similarly for APS-C lenses, not much of a difference.

              What is Nikon doing wrong that Canon is doing right? Are the D800, D600 & D750 initial problems still of much relevance a year or more later (in particular since FX is much smaller than DX)? Is it really only about marketing and distribution where Nikon is blundering?

            • yes, I recently covered that on PhotoRumors:

              Canon Q3 operating profit nearly halves on post-Brexit yen strength

              http://www.reuters.com/article/canon-results-idUSL4N1CU215

            • Eric Calabros

              They tried to dethrone Canon for decades and failed, they tried to survive the smartphone disruption tsunami, and failed. and now they are failing to stop Sony troops to enter the castle. seems like aggregated misachievement. I wouldn’t be surprised if I hear staff (from top to bottom) are suffering “learned helplessness”.

            • dabug91

              I think Nikon needs to effectively eliminate their PnS and bridge cameras and move the Nikon 1 lineup into that price bracket. Many smartphones finally have 1/⅔ sensors in them now (made by Sony), and 1″ sensor cameras need to become the new “point and shoot” market to distinguish themselves from the capabilities of smartphone cameras. I realize people pay a premium for their compactness, but a 1″ sensor is still a small sensor and simply doesn’t merit such a high cost anymore. Let 4/3 sensors take the place of current 1″ sensors, which Nikon won’t have to worry about since they don’t make them. Nikon 1 shouldn’t be close in price to 4/3 system from other camera makers.

            • Thom Hogan

              Compacts are rapidly going away. The CIPA numbers are one of the most appalling retreats of product category I’ve seen in tech. Nikon was probably the last to start trimming and closing down their compact line.

        • nwcs

          Yes, this year they have gone down some. But over a longer timeframe they are decreasing at a much lesser rate. It’s clear that dslrs have a place but it’s in increasingly smaller chunks. I expect mirrorless to bounce back a small bit as the better mirrorless models become available.

          • ITN

            I believe that is mainly because mirrorless ILC cameras are the newer thing, and people want to try them out (as they often do, try new gadgets). I also believe many of them will realize DSLRs are actually better for many purposes, and go back but it’ll take time because it’s so costly to sell at a loss and buy into a new system and even costlier to do it twice. The major trend is a decline in the dedicated camera market and it is seen in all types of dedicated cameras. Consumers bought cameras in masses in the first decade of the 21th century but since few are really interested in photography, they move to something else. The manufacturers of cameras will have to work with a much smaller sales volume, perhaps similar to the camera sales numbers of the film era, or even less since now the mobile phone camera has taken over most of the consumers’ needs and this didn’t exist in the film era.

            • nwcs

              Time will prove one of us right. I’m sure the same thing happened when 35mm was gaining popularity against medium format or slrs against rangefinders or tlrs.

            • Thom Hogan

              You forgot autofocus versus manual focus, which was a huge win for a non-major player, at least until they got locked into patent suits and their attention diverted.

            • Nemmondom Meg

              There is no technical benefit in dslr over mirrorless except the longer battery life.

            • ITN

              There is the optical viewfinder. EVFs produce a lot of artifacts when panning the camera which distract from monitoring what is happening with the subject. It’s a bit like the difference between playing sports in real world vs. using a gaming console.

            • Nyarlathotep

              Much faster AF with off sensor PDAF in DSLRs. Better subject movement tracking with mirrors and and off sensor PDAF. Faster viewfinder response with OVF vs EVF.

              Not that there aren’t downsides to DSLR vs. Mirrorless, but they each have their technical benefits. Different tools for different jobs. At least at this point with the foreseeable tech we have.

            • Thom Hogan

              off or on sensor doesn’t determine speed, it determines accuracy. And never bet against bandwidth. The mirrorless cameras will catch up.

            • Thom Hogan

              Sorry, but this is currently incorrect. There are several benefits of DSLRs over mirrorless other than battery life. The real question is whether any of those benefits, including battery life, is a key driver of sales.

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, you think like Nikon is acting. And you’d be wrong, long term.

              “Better for many purposes.”

              Please list them, and don’t forget to include the size of the audience with those purposes. That’s because the biggest audience is not the traditional DSLR audience, it is the Internet-sharing audience.

            • ITN

              Better if you want to see a living and moving subject as clearly as possible, in detail, in real time, without artifacts. Better if you want to photograph, e.g., birds in flight with a high percentage of keepers. Better if you want to have access to a comprehensive set of lenses. Better if you regularly photograph in cold weather and don’t want to fumble with 10 spare batteries just to get through the day.

              It is up to Nikon to choose the audience for whom they design their products. Our task as photographers is to make good photographs using whatever tools that we feel fit. And it shouldn’t matter at all to the photographer, who is the manufacturer of those tools, as long as there is someone who does make suitable ones for our tasks.

            • Thom Hogan

              “Better if you want to see a living and moving subject as clearly as possible, in detail, in real time, without artifacts.”

              I used to think that, but there are a few recent mirrorless cameras where I just don’t get that same feeling, and it’s only going to get better.

              “Better for BIF.”

              Sure. Very small segment of camera buying market.

              “Better if you want to have access to a comprehensive set of lenses.”

              Not DX, not CX. And Fujifilm X, m4/3, and Sony FE can’t be faulted and are getting better. Better than DX already.

              “It is up to Nikon to choose the audience for whom they design their products”

              Sure, but the Internet is now full of folk that are claiming that they’re not in Nikon’s audience any more. That should worry Nikon big time.

            • miyaker

              Thom, I’m curious which mirrorless cameras provide such an EVF. I’ve shot a series of Sony mirrorless, currently an a6000. I use them because they’re small, but that’s it. I kept expecting the next generation to be better, but compared to an optical viewfinder they’re harder to see detail, are dynamic range limited, and you can’t even tell even tell the difference when you rotate your polarizer… it’s just horrible. And the mirrorless experience is so slow – like working underwater compared to a ten year old DSLR.

              Is the a6300 really that much better? Or other mirrorless?

            • Thom Hogan

              Try an XT-2 and you’ll see what I mean. The Sony A6xxx series has only been average, though I haven’t had any real time with the A6500 yet.

            • Tony Beach

              If you don’t mind, I have a couple of questions for you regarding the XT-2 EVF. If you pan quickly does the EVF keep up or is there a noticeable lag? I would find that uncomfortable. If you set the camera to UniWB is that what you will see in the viewfinder? Related to that, under best settings (whatever that may be) does the scene look like it does when I take my eye away from the viewfinder?

            • Thom Hogan

              The best EVF in that respect was the Samsung NX-1, which was gen-locked to the sensor and had virtually no visual lag. The XT-2 is close, but not quite at the same level.

            • nwcs

              If you’re in boost mode you have 100fps for the EVF. It keeps up quite well. The lag time is not noticeable. There’s always some lag from shutter press to taking the pic but that was always true. You have a lot of options for the EVF for display. If you set a UniWB you’ll see it that way. You can also turn off the pic effects and get a, basically, neutral view without one of the film simulations.

            • Max

              Don’t know about the us, but on the second hand market in south africa its still much much easier to get lenses for canon and nikon dslrs. Especially dx. And cheaper. And of course fx works on dx.

            • true

              I’m not in nikon’s audience anymore.. unless they find some secret to make mirrorless FF with leica M size lenses, while still retaining AF. The lenses can be f2.8 , what matters is the IQ not the noise. Small lenses on a small-ish FF mirrorless body = sony A7 users (and everyone else) will jump ship

              until then, the grass is greener for me in m43 land

            • Proto

              internet audience – hence google is releasing Pixel

            • Thom Hogan

              You have to ask yourself why they’re trying them. Generally when people are satisfied with the product they have, they aren’t actively sampling other competitive products. You don’t see iPhone users buying an Android phone to see how it works.

              Sampling indicates a dissatisfaction with something in the current product. One of the big initial drivers of that was size and weight. More lately, it’s starting to be lens choice. Nikon themselves essentially told customers “if you want a full system, buy FX.” But FX is bigger and heavier (see point one).

              All that said, it is very clear that mirrorless is the future of ILC. It’s a cost thing, and Nikon understands costs. Simply put, a Sony A7–other than sensor price–is cheaper to build and faster to build than a D3400. The components in mirrorless benefit from scale in ways that the mechanical systems don’t. They align quicker and easier in manufacturing.

              So, at the point where mirrorless equals DSLR in responsiveness–which is getting mighty close–the companies making mirrorless cameras have a pricing advantage over the DSLRs. Right now, Nikon’s pricing advantage is volume, not in the individual bill of goods. They buy more sensors and parts than say, Olympus.

              But Sony is Nikon’s worst nightmare in this scenario. Sony is eroding Nikon’s market share now, and that volume pricing advantage is starting to shift. If Sony passes Nikon in market share, it’s game over, Nikon will have lost the second spot in cameras permanently.

              So ask yourself this, how is Nikon marketing against Sony? See anything specific out there? Bueller?

        • Thom Hogan

          “Mirrorless ILC sales are going down almost as fast as DSLRs.”

          No. Until the quake, they were on-trend to grow. And DSLRs, Canon is reporting relatively stable unit volume, so the decline there is all Nikon.

          “Most players in the mirrorless market are losing money on these products.”

          That was true of DSLRs, too ;~). Only the top two players have tended to be profitable, except during the rapid growth ramp of the 00’s. In mirrorless, the top two are Sony and Canon. In DSLRs it’s Canon and Nikon.

          • ITN

            DSLR, mirrorless, and compact camera sales are all affected by the quake. My point is that Nikon wouldn’t make money from mirrorless even if they heavily invested in its development. That train went long ago.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, the quake affected things dis-proportionally. Canon just reported a slight DSLR increase and a massive compact camera decrease. Why? Because they use their own sensors for DSLRs, and Sony’s for compacts.

              Thus, the DSLR shipment decline in the CIPA data is basically all Nikon, which means a massive downward trend. Their only saving grace appears to be that they had a lot of inventory of both finished goods and sensors, and that a couple of their cameras use sensors fabbed at the old Toshiba plant, not the Sony one.

              See my post elsewhere where I comment about Nikon as “a camera company.” It’s clear that about one-third of ILC purchasers now prefer mirrorless. Canon is now number two in mirrorless. Where is Nikon?

            • ITN

              So, Canon reported an *increase* in DSLR sales. How do you turn this around to mean that Nikon should focus on mirrorless? Clearly even the market leader can increase their DSLR sales my making good products.

              It is not possible to deduce the reason for reduced or increased sales from the data available – it can be a question of demand, supply issue related to the earthquake or supply issue unrelated to the earthquake, or most likely a combination of these.

              “It’s clear that about one-third of ILC purchasers now prefer mirrorless.” This is not all that clear. Many people already have DSLRs. They may be adding mirrorless to it, or trying it out as the next tech thing, or drones, IR cameras in cars, action cameras, you name it there are always customers who want to try out tech that they don’t yet have. However, this doesn’t tell us anything about what is best for achieving particular photographic goals. Buying stuff is not the ultimate goal of photographers, good photography is. The less gear is manufactured to achieve the results, the better it is for the world. Reduced sales is in itself not a bad thing. It may be simply an indication that people are not buying as much stuff without a good reason any more. And that, if it were possible, would be best for everyone in the long run.

            • Thom Hogan

              ILC is declining. ILC used to be just DSLR. Now it’s DSLR+mirrorless, and still declining. Nikon’s market share in the declining ILC market is going down, Canon and Sony market shares are going up. Canon and Sony have mirrorless products that are selling, Nikon doesn’t.

              So, if the ILC market declines all the way to about 6-8m, what’s Nikon going to be doing? Selling 1.5m DSLRs?

              As for my comment about preference, I’ll stick by it. It’s based on random surveying. Readers of my site know I’ve been writing about sampling and leaking for some time. You seem to think it’s all sampling. It’s actually turned to mostly leaking lately. And I measure it as at least a 5% erosion for Nikon. At least.

              FWIW, what’s your position going to be when Nikon introduces a new mirrorless system in 2017/18? ;~)

            • ITN

              Problem is that you have no way to control your data for various bias factors. For example, if you write a blog whose main theme is criticising Nikon’s executive decisions and the product lines they choose to make or not make, you are more likely to get those people who agree with you to answer your surveys. That’s the nature of writing an opinionated column: you will have fans and those who disagree. This is not a proper way to prepare for a query if you want the results to be neutral.

              I have no problem if Nikon introuduces a new mirrorless system. It’s up to them to decide what to make and if they think they can excel in mirrorless, it’s not my business to say yes or no. I use DSLRs, however, and it is a pity if their development resources are reduced because of a different product line that is of not suitable for me. I would prefer each (camera) company to specialize in one major camera line because if they develop several, what happens is what is going on with Sony and Canon: Canon has very few lenses for their mirrorless offering, and Sony has very few modern and price-competitive lenses for their semitransparent mirror camera system. Sony seems to be doing well in video, however. One company’s resources simply do not seem to be enough to do well in multiple different camera lines, or at least not all of them. Personally I see no advantage in a new mirrorless camera system from Nikon since it’ll start with almost no lenses and it would take a long time to make a decent lens lineup. I’ve waited Nikon for decades for them to build a proper autofocus lens lineup for SLRs, and they’re now finally starting to be there (a few lenses still missing). I am not interested in waiting for another 20-40 years for a new product line to mature. If you want a mirrorless camera, buy one that exists and has a lot of native lenses today. Those who start early are likely to stay at the top for the foreseeable future. Thus I don’t believe there is any point for Nikon to join since there is no advantage they have over the existing product lines and they would be almost a decade behind in lens lineup. Dividing resources is not going to help.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, I don’t, though I don’t survey the way or who you think I do, and the bias isn’t what you think it is. Nikon themselves accept my surveys and consider them useful.

              Nikon is a big company. They had the resources to have something like three dozen simultaneous camera models on the market. To my knowledge, those resources haven’t gone away.

              What HAS gone away is the market for many of those models. What customers are actually buying these days is different than the mix Nikon previously had (and pretty much up until a year or so ago). Of the 14.6m cameras shipped so far by all players this year, 1.8m of them are mirrorless. Given market shares, significantly fewer than 200k of those were Nikons. It might have even been below 100k.

              And meanwhile, in DSLRs in the first two quarters of 2016 Nikon 1.5m to Canon’s 2.5m, a serious net erosion of DSLR market share, and I’m pretty sure the third quarter numbers Nikon will announce in two weeks will make that decline higher.

              Seriously, Nikon has some very nice cameras (D7200, D500, D750, D810, D5), but that simply isn’t enough to hold court.

      • decentrist

        No, it’s the bread and butter to Nikon financially. The 3/5 series represents the best image to value option, and the bodies are reliable if unexciting. But that comes at that price point.

        • nwcs

          So how is your short rant about mirrorless anything but a rant that has little basis in actual fact?

    • ZoetMB

      The 6300 and 6500 are great compact cameras and there’s lots to like (and also lots to hate) in the A7 line. Neither of those lines are commodities – the A7 is actually quite an expensive system if you go for the better lenses. It’s not a race to the bottom at all. These aren’t point and shoots.

      • decentrist

        D3300 to D3400 was from Jan.2014 to Sept. 2016. Sony a6300 to a6500 went from Feb 2016 to Nov. 2106 There’s no race on the Nikon side, and that’s a good thing. a6300 was a space heater. Did you try one?

        • nwcs

          You do know that the a6500 is another tier camera and not replacing the a6300. That dismantles your single example.

          • decentrist

            a6300 initial pricing $1000.00 a6500 initial pricing $1400.00, it is a replacement to a failed model.

            • nwcs

              Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it so. You’re wrong and can’t accept it.

            • decentrist

              it’s a big stinking,overheating,overpriced piece of shit..i would buy one were I willing to burn money or worshipped at the alter of depreciation

            • nwcs

              Presenting your opinions as fact means you have no facts.

            • Spy Black

              I have to agree with him about the A6300/6500. The A6500 is essentially a D610.

            • nwcs

              Even if we accept that then it is one minor example that still doesn’t support his assertion of a race to the bottom.

            • People still use the a6300 but just shoot shorter vids in 4k. The d600 was an actual manufacturing fault. I think it’s not the same issues.

            • Spy Black

              People still use the D600, they just clean more often.

              Both are manufacturing faults.

            • true

              Are you saying sony managed to make a camera that’s smaller and cheaper, yet same IQ as Nikon’s FF camera? I don’t know if that’s a very good forecast for nikon.

            • decentrist

              just keep buying Sony every time they churn out a new model. you should be in your 401k in no time

            • nwcs

              Just keep trolling. I’ve never indicated I have a Sony. But I do like facts which apparently you don’t.

            • decentrist

              What is it that makes you post here? Are you frustrated?

            • nwcs

              Why do you keep replying to me?

            • dclivejazz

              nwcs is a long standing participant to this site. I value his opinion, especially compared to the fly by pontifications of a newcomer.

            • So you’re saying they are discontinuing the A6300? Source?

            • decentrist

              I’m saying the reiterated because the last model was an overhyped turd…major problems

            • No you’re not saying its reiterated you were implying that it’s being discontinued “D3300 to D3400 was from Jan.2014 to Sept. 2016. Sony a6300 to a6500 went from Feb 2016 to Nov. 2106” – why would you give that example? The D3300 and D3400 are on the same tier.

              Just admit you didn’t know the A6500 was on a higher tier and your example was wrong.

            • decentrist

              I’ll only say they’ll have a a6700 out as soon as they can…perhaps they can churn out a new model every 3 months

        • Nemmondom Meg

          As i read it was overwarming after 20 mins 4k recording. To me it is not like a serious issue. Noone will continously shoot in 4k for 20 minutes, except during tests. On the other hand it is a still camera for first, what offers exceptional video quality next to its main purpose.

          • Lots of people were annoyed when the D5 was limited in 4k recording. I remember saying at the time that’s it’s better to have a limit then over heating. But plenty of people want to record for long sections, live events, weddings, bands etc. Have multiple cameras on throughout the event an then cut between them in post.

  • Plug

    I have a V3 and a couple of lenses. Useful when out walking. But a J6 without a viewfinder? Not for me. And the suggestion that DX is properly covered? They have some way to go. Having said these things, the Nikon stuff I own is excellent and enjoyable.

  • nwcs

    And this is why I don’t have any more confidence in Nikon. No clear and coherent concept for the future of photography. When I first went to Fuji I found it lacking and came back to a D750 for a long while but the X-T2 has changed that. I haven’t had any urge to return. That’s a problem for Nikon. Fuji got enough right and their EVF is usable enough in bright daylight and their AF is good enough for most uses that there’s nothing to draw me back.

    But where’s the vision Nikon? Where’s the future? Where is the coherent design path? Where’s the attention to detail and execution? Put simply, what can Nikon do to compel me, and the others like me, to return to Nikon in the future? Instead I’m investing in their past: F100 and used lenses. They don’t make money on that…

    • Just Me

      They make cameras; you provide the vision. 😉
      Personally, I prefer companies to specialize. That way, if I want a great dSLR, I can buy a Canon or Nikon, if I want a great mirrorless, I can buy a Sony or Fuji. Why would you want one company to make a wide variety of mediocre products?

      • nwcs

        Lol, you do realize that the companies that have a coherent direction do better than spaghetti on wall ones. Nikon doesn’t have a clear direction. They’re disorganized. What is Nikon specializing in and is it prospering?

        • ITN

          Nikon is trying to find new markets and investigating different possibilities (including action cameras, 360, underwater, robotics etc.) All of these involve some use of optics and technology. At the same time, they are continuing to develop their DSLR product line to serve their existing customers’ needs. In the DSLR market, Nikon is doing reasonably well. Canon is doing better but it’s not necessarily because they have a superior product, but other factors come into play as well.

          • nwcs

            Is this you Andrew? Surely you don’t think their recent efforts are exemplary or guaranteed to succeed?

            • EvilTed

              You talk too much.
              Like most that do, it’s usually not worth listening too 🙂

            • Join the conversation or be quiet.

            • nwcs

              Just like your comments. 🙂

            • EvilTed

              No mine are great.
              Yours are shite 🙂

            • You talk too much 🙂

            • You talk too much.
              Like most that do, it’s usually not worth listening too 🙂

            • EvilTed

              Take your boyfriend home and be gone…

            • The comments about Nikon are really hitting the spot because they are true, you’re getting butt hurt. Don’t fight it. Be objective. And look at the xt 2 for a prime example of what nikon DX should be hahaha

            • Leave your homophobic comments somewhere else.

            • nwcs

              Only because you apparently only like comments you agree with. Since you have absolutely nothing useful to add… take your shite and go.

          • When you really think about it. Canon has better overall glass (more up to date), they barely ever need af fine tuning (all my Nikons (except for the d90) needed fine tuning).

            And IF you actually shoot a camera properly Canon’s dynamic range is fine.

            Nikon is more rugged I’ll give it that.

            • ITN

              Of those whom I know, I haven’t really noticed any difference in the need to do fine tuning. In particularly the D500 and D5 seem to be easier than earlier models from Nikon, suggesting what they are doing currently is better than what they did in the past. Nikon had their bad cases of cameras where the AF didn’t work correctly in many cases, and so did Canon. Generally speaking autofocus technology is getting better.

              I disagree about the dynamic range; if you shoot landscapes with the sun above the horizon or interiors (and need to show the scene behind the window as well as the interior), or have to shoot events in bright sunlight, a high dynamic range camera allows excellent results to be obtained more easily than a camera with a few stops less dynamic range. For many applications it is very helpful.

            • Thom Hogan

              In dealing with two dozen random Nikon DSLRs and lenses at a recent workshop, I’d say that about a third of the camera/lens combinations didn’t need adjustment. Most of the rest benefited modest adjustments (in the +/-5 range). A small handful needed larger adjustments.

            • ITN

              I adjust all my camera+lens combinations. There is only a problem if no available setting produces an acceptable overall performance with the combination and if a quick visit to service cannot fix it. This happened with some cameras made in 2010-2012 but today things are, in my experience, easier. I know some Canon 5D III users who never trust the AF and some who are satisfied after adjustment but aren’t getting any more consistency than I get with my Nikons. In any case the technology is fairly similar and so are its benefits and pitfalls. In the latest Multi-CAM 20k equipped camera I see only a few percent of shots out of focus (with fast lenses). That’s a very respectable performance in action situations.

          • Thom Hogan

            Again, Nikon is losing market share in DSLRs while Canon is not. That’s not “reasonably well.”

        • Just Me

          ‘We make dSLRs’ and lenses (just not the lenses YOU want!) 🙂
          How much more coherent do you want?
          Are they prospering? Well, they’re still in business and in this economy, that’s quite a feat.

          • nwcs

            Coherent means a clear vision for where they are expecting cameras to go from workflow to modularity to reducing friction.

            • Just Me

              Hmm…

              1 a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : CONSISTENT *coherent style* *a coherent argument* b : having clarity or intelligibility : UNDERSTANDABLE *a coherent person* *a coherent passage*
              2 : having the quality of cohering; especially : COHESIVE, COORDINATED *a coherent plan for action*
              3 a : relating to or composed of waves having a constant difference in phase *coherent light* b : producing coherent light *a coherent source*
              –co£her£ent£ly adverb
              Nope. Nothing about cameras there. 🙂

            • nwcs

              You’re being obtuse.

            • Just Me

              I thought it was acute! 🙂
              Seriously, though, it comes down to two basic approaches to technology. Some folks, and I get the impression you’re one of them, like technology and see it as a means to improving things and not dependent on need. Nothing wrong with that…it’s a thing.
              Others, and I’m definitely one of them, are primarily interested in the thing (in this case, photography) and see technology as one way to solve problems. I have no problems that mirrorless cameras would solve. I see no need for technology (mirrorless cameras) for the type of photography I practice. And “practice” is definitely the correct word here. 🙂

            • nwcs

              That’s certainly a valid position. I think for me all of the camera makers fail horribly in making the photography experience the best it can be. If only one of them would lead the way with better, and thoughtful, integration with third parties for workflow, in-camera extensions, and seamless transfer of images. That would go a long way.

            • Just Me

              For me, the photography experience doesn’t get any better than looking through the viewfinder (OVF) at a perfect landscape or the enigmatic smile on a pretty girl or the weathered lines on the face of a gentleman who’s seen it all.
              Pushing the shutter; watching the file come to life on my computer; getting paid… None of that comes close.
              Well, getting paid doesn’t suck! 😉

            • August Personage

              I’ll second this, but you’re asking a Japanese company to act more like a Silicon Valley one. As much as they should be doing this it may be too alien to their corporate culture.
              A lens map for the different mounts would be nice too.

        • decentrist

          your in here to put your right hand on your member, aren’t you? keep stroking

          • nwcs

            Insults are the last refuge of a poor argument. You and Ken W ought to hang out sometime.

    • ITN

      I prefer the modern Nikons and very much like the direction they are going towards.

      • nwcs

        I’m sure it works for some but clearly it’s not working for many people. The market is showing that fact.

        • ITN

          Are you saying that modern Nikon cameras and lenses do not work as well for something that you need and can better do with an F100 and older lenses?

          • nwcs

            No. I’m saying for digital the xt2 doesn’t have me looking back. But I like what Nikon used to do with film slrs.

    • decentrist

      you are comparing apples to oranges

      • nwcs

        They’re both fruit.

    • decentrist

      So, the D500 isn’t enough camera for you?

      • nwcs

        It’s a great camera. I was very tempted by it. The problem is the lack of DX lenses. The camera doesn’t live in a vacuum you know. And Nikon is clear that they really don’t get the DX oriented user.

      • If you don’t need d5 af performance than the xt 2 is good enough. Add to that the xt 2 is lighter, fast evf and has lenses to support it.

        D500 has become very niche. I shot with my x pro 2 at a indoor event, very low light for a fire performance and it was nailing focus. The xt 2 performance is 90% of the d500, but to some people that’s good enough.

        The only reason why I keep Nikon is for tethering, but just today fuji rumors has announced a firmware update for the xt 2 (which means it will also come to the xpro 2) for tethering. So looks like I’ll be selling the last of my Nikon.

        If you shoot sports and need insane d5 af then obviously d500 is the best choice. But the market isn’t there.

        • decentrist

          Fuji does not have near the legacy glass or inventory of speedlights to be close to Nikon. D500 kills the xt-2 in low light just where you need it for sports

          • I shot in low light just last week. At ISO 128000 I can barely see if I wasn’t looking at the evf, the af is fine. The d500 has advantage in tracking.

            Speed lights are a Nikon advantage I agree but cactus has released controllable power for speed lights – so you can control the power of other speed lights from your hot shoe.

            And Fuji has all Nikon’s legacy glass and more if you add a adapter.

            End of the day d500 has af tracking advantages. Everything else is good enough.

            Plus xt 2/x pro 2 is way lighter.

            • decentrist

              tell me that with the grip and a load of batteries…no difference….the adapter is good if you are shooting still subjects, but you are shooting sports, no? tell me if your Cacti lights are working 20 years from now like my SB-28s…I think not

            • Now I can tell you’re trolling. I told you I shoot with a x pro 2. There is no grip for a x pro 2. And I don’t shoot sports. Do you shoot sports with legacy lenses? lol

              Why wouldn’t the cactus work 20 years from now? Are you from the future. Tell me when will it break.

              Sometimes you just need to read and take facts in and stop being a fan girl.

            • decentrist

              I am a fan of only that which works best…Fuji is wonderful stuff…they are innovating more than anyone…I made a mistake about the x pro comment…but they have a long way to go as far as a total system. case in point, using Metz to build dedicated speedlights. You should be happy with your Fuji…

      • A-Sign

        D500 is a specialized workhorse and very good at that but that is not what most consumers need or want – for a real pro it is sure a great investment. The photo business has changed since the introduction of the smartphone a lot. People want smaller and lightweight stuff.

    • dclivejazz

      I too use both Nikon and Fuji. For situations where I absolutely have to get the shot, or need to use flash, I still use my Nikon gear. Even compared to the XT-2, my D810 will focus more accurately and faster. Start up lag is still a killer with the Fuji that will cause missed shots, not to mention the short battery life and problem with even really knowing how much battery life you have left.

      The Fuji gear is great for walking around or having something with you at all times. I’ve stopped lugging my D8xx’s around all the time. But I don’t like how the detail of landscapes from Fuji render in LR so I’m going back to bringing the D8xx along for such purposes. Now that I’ve had my Fuji stuff a while I’m beginning to wonder how reliable the lens will prove. They make some wacky noises. Not that I haven’t also had problems with Nikon gear, believe me. I just don’t think Fuji is the solution for every photographic challenge and Nikon still has its strengths.

  • manattan

    “and the Nikon 1, these [ ] mean we offer to the full lineup and we receive each customer’s good reactions.”

    LOL

    • Athanasius Kirchner

      The bit about there being “no cannibalization” is the corollary here. Eat your own or have them eaten by someone else, which is exactly what’s happening. This interview seemed like a discussion between aliens and humans in some parts…

  • purenupe1

    This guy could run for president of the united states….he didnt offer anything on the direction of the company.

  • br0xibear

    I’ve read many of these type of interviews with Nikon representatives/execs and it’s invariably gobbledygook that explains and answers nothing.
    Everbody knows by now that digital camera sales (mirrorless and dslr) are in freefall. Nikon (and Canon’s) camera divisions are going to become way smaller than they are, and will only be catering for enthusiasts and professionals. The vast majority of people don’t care for a camera that isn’t inside their mobile phone, the idea of having a separate camera doesn’t even enter their minds.
    Unfortunately, for enthusiasts and professionals, it means longer waits between updates, less new products and even higher prices.
    The problem Nikon has is long term since it’s camera division forms such a big part of it’s overall income.

    • Mirrorless sales are not in free fall. They have been quite steady in fact. Which means if Nikon want to seriously enter that market they’ll have to steal somebody else’s share. Which won’t happen easily.

      • Spy Black

        “Mirrorless sales are not in free fall. They have been quite steady in fact.”

        Source?

        • Thom Hogan

          Mirrorless unit shipments fell in the three months following the quake. Guess what, other than Canon, all of them had sensor supply issues during that time. Up until the quake, mirrorless was actually growing for the year.

          • Spy Black

            Well I guess we’ll have to see how things go from here forward. I wonder if manufacturers will start to think about being dependent on one source for their sensors from here in.

      • br0xibear

        Digital cameras sold globally dropped from 120 million units in 2010 to fewer than 40 million last year, according to the Camera and Imaging Products Association.
        Here’s another report outlining the same thing…
        http://www.credenceresearch.com/report/digital-cameras-market
        If you have a different report/article that says mirrorless is not part of the decline then please post it.

        • ZoetMB

          Yes, but that includes point-and-shoots, so I’m not sure it’s relevant to this discussion. 12.9 million DSLRs were sold in 2010 (no mirrorless back then). 5.2 million DSLRs and 1.8 million mirrorless bodies were sold in 2015, according to CIPA. 7 million units worldwide across all the CIPA manufacturers is really a very small market, although the 35mm SLR market was also actually quite small.

          Obviously, that’s still a big decline, although I think there would have been a decline even if it weren’t for smartphones, as the market became saturated. People don’t replace cameras every year or even ever other year. They keep them for many years until there are major technological advances and they only replace them then if they’re actually actively using them.

          • br0xibear

            Hi ZoetMB
            “People don’t replace cameras every year or even ever other year. They keep them for many years until there are major technological advances and they only replace them then if they’re actually actively using them.”
            But there’s a massive amount of people who never bought them in the first place, and never will because they use their mobile phones.
            There were plenty of mirrorless cameras in 2010, wasn’t that long ago…although sometimes it feels like it, lol.
            Mirrorless cameras are being bought by enthusiasts/pros who used to buy dslrs, and some as an addition to their dslr gear…those numbers are tiny.
            Mirrorless isn’t going to stop Nikon or Canon’s imaging divisions from shrinking.

            • ZoetMB

              In 2010, sales of mirrorless were not large enough for CIPA to break them out separately. They didn’t do that until 2012.

            • Thom Hogan

              Right, and if they had, they would show enormous growth from 2010 to 2015 ;~).

        • Thom Hogan

          The same source also shows that mirrorless unit volume slipped in 2013 and has remained flat since then, not dropping.

      • ZoetMB

        Year to date, they’re down 16% (DSLR’s are down 19%). In calendar 2015, they were up 2%. In 2014, they were flat. I’d say for a relatively new camera type which should still be in an immature growth cycle, a 16% decline is pretty ominous. Mirrorless comprises 26% of the DSLR/Mirrorless market in terms of shipped units.

        • EnPassant

          I assume you are talking about CIPA statistics?
          Please note that those are shipment data and greatly affected by the earthquake. It’s not the same as actual sales to customers.
          The eartquake (and other thing like Nikon’s problem with the DL cameras) also may have delayed the release of new products. With no new products sales are going down.
          So I wouldn’t put to much weight in the statistics for this year until we know about shipments next year.

          I think it will be more and more difficult to sell big DSLRs to ordinary consumers. That’s why those sales constantly decline. But for many consumers price is the most important thing. And entry level DSLRs are still cheaper than low end mirrorless cameras with an EVF. But the difference in price is getting smaller. And for those who don’t care about a finder mirrorless cameras are already cheaper, especially deals for older models.

          People already use the smartphone for their social media activities. So I doubt sales will increase because of easy uploding to internet. But it may of course not hurt if it is included in compacts and ICL cameras. Or it may. D3400 being the exemple. To have enough battery power Nikon had to make the flash weaker and exclude sensor cleaning compared to D3300.

          It will be hard for camera companies to do anything about the fact that the digital photo bubble is behind us. Sales will continue to decline to the bottom where people upgrade because of need not because of new technology. The only thing that could increase sales is a new disruptive technology. But right now that is hard to see when it comes to traditional system cameras.

          • ZoetMB

            Yes, I know it’s shipment data and not sales data. The point is that those products are in the sales pipeline and could be sold if there was demand for them. The earthquake is only affecting sales of delayed new models. For the most part, it’s not affecting current models because they’re almost all in stock.

            In the case of Nikon, every current (and some past) Nikon bodies are in stock (as of a week or two ago) except for the D3200, in at least one configuration. Even the D4s is still in stock.

            Every Canon body from the release of the EOS-1D X in early 2012 is in stock, except for the new EOS-5D Mark IV.

            The Sony A7 (body only), A7r and A7s is out of stock, but they’ve been effectively replaced by the II versions anyway, all of which are in stock. The A6300 is in stock. The new A6500 isn’t, but that’s because it’s brand new.

            So, even though the DL line is lost in outer space and the Keymissions are just coming to market now, you really can’t blame the earthquake for major sales losses IMO. The camera companies will, but that’s just a rationalization.

            • EnPassant

              The point is these are shipment figures. We don’t know about actual sales world wide. Retailers can have a big stock of models released before the earthquake. So just because almost everything is in stock doesen’t mean sales are down.

              There is also a lag for the reports. The latest is for August. I bet we will see an increase for Oktober and November.

              New models are certainly driving sales. How much is difficult to know. as it depends on how attractive these models are, world economy etcetera.

              A very interesting fact however is that before the earthquake, in March, both production and shipments of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras was higher than same month in 2015! Then everything took a nosedive in April. So I still claim the earthquake is to blame for lower production and shipments since then.

            • Thom Hogan

              No. The earthquake is affected all models still in production, which even includes older non-Mark II Sony models.

        • Thom Hogan

          Again, data from April onwards reflects lack of sensor supply, so can’t yet be evaluated. The Jan-Mar numbers for mirrorless showed growth.

      • According to CIPA, mirrorless and DSLR fall pretty much at the same rate:
        http://photorumors.com/tag/cipa-reports/

        • EnPassant

          Because most of them use Sony sensors. The earthquake cut of the supply of sensors for a long time. I would wait for the 2017 CIPA data before drawing any conclusions!

          • RodneyKilo

            We’re still blaming the earthquake?
            Which camera lines and models are out of stock as a result?

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, we are. It takes about three months for a new wafer to become a set of sensors. The fab was shut down for about three months. So there’s a six month window when sensors were in short supply. Camera makers were rationing what they had and what few were coming out of final finish at Sony to what they wanted to sell. For Nikon, for instance, that meant D750 instead of D610.

  • ZoetMB

    “we’ll keep doing what we’re doing”.
    Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

    He actually said absolutely nothing in the interview. The language is so stilted, it sounds like it was translated from the Japanese. Nikon might be doing wonderful things, but they are obviously not going to pre-announce anything in an interview.

    So either the interview doesn’t reflect what they’re really doing or it does and Nikon is living in severe denial about where the market is headed. Since it doesn’t know what direction to take in several instances (mirrorless, video, etc.), it’s simply doing nothing instead. If that’s the case, Nikon is running scared.

    I’ve worked for companies like this. Every time you suggest something new, whether it’s a new product or acquiring another company, there are executives who rationalize why nothing should be done or changed. Why? Because the corporate culture is afraid of risk and it makes the executives’ jobs harder.

    If that’s really the case at Nikon, IMO Nikon needs new leadership from the outside who would come in, force decisions, not be afraid to fail and really shake things up.

    Their 2nd quarter results should be released by mid-November. I suspect they’re going to come in even below their last reduced forecast. They’ll rationalize it by talking about the Keymission and DL delays.

    “We receive each customer’s good reactions.”
    That’s pretty funny. Guess they don’t read this site or DPReview.

    • Just Me

      “we’ll keep doing what we’re doing”.
      Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

      Only if they expect different results. 😉

    • decentrist

      what are you offering as a solution?

      • Fly Moon

        If they lose market share and money, don’t you think they need to NOT “keep doing what we’re doing”?
        It’s their job to find a solution not the customers. The customers will just switch to another maker.
        Remember, Kodak, RIM, etc..?

        • decentrist

          Good that you mention Kodak..they were destroyed by Fuji in a race to the bottom on film pricing, and than did hyper iteration of cheap cameras. They lost their way. Nikon has not lost it’s way. To get in there and compete for a small slice of the mirrorless market would be as stupid as Fuji slugging it out with Nikon for FX bragging rights. That’s why Fuji leapfrogged to medium format. Digital imaging will be a much smaller market arcing to the high end. Phones more than anything are expanding digital imaging. Nikon would be foolish to fight the tide. Within their wheelhouse, they are the best.

          • nwcs

            That’s a huge oversimplification of Kodak’s massive failures.

            In any case, Nikon’s market share is in decline. Their product arrangement has issues from quality to features. They’re not in a strong position to gain mindshare let alone market share.

            • decentrist

              of course it’s in decline….. you’re blaming Nikon for that decline is gratuitous…Nikon put out huge amounts of point and shoots,,,that goes to phones

            • nwcs

              Their decline is not proportional. Their losing ground. Since you can’t accept that we will let the market decide things. I don’t want Nikon to have problems but I see things for what they are and not what I wish them to be.

            • decentrist

              yes, we can agree they are losing ground. they are still best of breed for what I do…your mileage may vary

            • Nyarlathotep

              Both Canon and Sony are seeing slower declines in non-compact camera sales than Nikon. Nikon can’t necessarily be blamed for the decline in the market, that is a discussion for another day about how all of the big camera manufacturers ignored the elephant in the room. That said, Nikon can certainly can be blamed by being less competitive protecting their DSLR and MILC market share as compared to their peers. Weak product iterations is not helping their market share. Not fleshing out the DX line is just plain crazy.

          • ZoetMB

            Kodak was not destroyed by Fuji because of film pricing. Kodak was destroyed because they couldn’t find a digital strategy that wouldn’t completely cannibalize their very profitable film business. The problem was that if they didn’t do it themselves, others would and that’s exactly what happened.

            They also had an executive team who lived in denial about how fast digital photography was going to take over.

            Kodak was also destroyed by the change in the theatrical business to digital presentation. Film for origination was never a great business for Kodak. All the money was in prints. So even when some filmmakers today decide to shoot on film and a few 35mm or 70mm prints get made, that really doesn’t amount to much. It helps the new Kodak because it’s a much smaller company, but it would have been a rounding error at the old Kodak.

            Considering digital photography was invented at Kodak by Steve Sasson and that Kodak made many of the early sensors, it’s really a shame that they couldn’t find a way to run a healthy digital business.

            Having said all that, when you have something as disruptive as digital photography, you can’t blame management too much – there was probably no way for the old Kodak to survive. The old film business was just too massive and too profitable.

            • decentrist

              I have 2 family members that worked for Eastmann for over 30 years. I am intimately aware of what they were doing and the mistakes they made. Eastmann Chemical, which they spun off has done nothing but good as the parent company withered away, no digital transformation , Sterling aquisition et al.

        • decentrist

          Nikon could put out the finest mirrorless camera tomorrow, and the market will still shrink.

          • A-Sign

            Not true at all. Why does Canon create the EOS M line? Only to waste money for all the engineering and production/manufacturing costs?

      • ZoetMB

        Although I agree with Fly Moon below that it’s Nikon’s job to come up with a solution, here’s a few items I’d like to see Nikon resolve:

        1. Go public with a longer term strategy so enthusiasts and pros know what to expect and be able to plan purchases. These vague generalities are completely useless.

        2. Pay far better attention to the workflow of pros and consumers (as Thom points out all the time.)

        3. As the interview alludes to, solve the problem of being able to upload to social media with one click or zero clicks.

        4. As per my other post, give consumers a reason to own a DSLR or other Nikon camera.

        5. Control inventory better so you don’t have three generations of the same camera in the market at the same time and the reverse: leaving money on the table because you can’t keep items in stock.

        6. Don’t bother to iterate a camera with a new model that actually has less functionality than the last one.

        7. Find a way to stop pricing people out of the market. In spite of a strong dollar and cheap Chinese labor on the low end of the lines, prices keep going up. $2800 for the new 70-200? Really? I paid $1450 in 2004 – that’s $1853 in 2016 dollars.

        8. Consider the fact that the form factor and industrial design may be obsolete, especially for younger people. They look at these cameras and see a brick.

        9. Stop rationalizing why something shouldn’t be done.

        10. Address the needs of the video market. Aside from those fairly low end AF-P DX lenses, why is it that Nikon hasn’t yet made a single lens suitable for event video – a lens that’s quiet enough to use with a nearby microphone and a zoom that holds focus from end-to-end? They’re giving away this market to Canon and Sony, among others.

        And I’m sure there’s many other items that people here can come up with. Thom addresses Nikon’s weaknesses all the time.

  • Eric Calabros

    They don’t want to make a decent DX mirrorless? Ok, its their problem, not mine. I’m pretty comfortable with OVF. But it will cost them more, DSLR has more components, and they need more profit. As you wish Nikon.

    • A-Sign

      You’re right. They could enter mirrorless at the low range of a D3300 or D5500 as a starting point. It does clearly have an advantage there (for example a better viewfinder as EVF can be made bigger with less effort).

  • Captain Megaton

    The Nikon statement confirms that for the time being Nikon will keep selling full frame dSLRs, APSC dSLRs, and Nikon 1.

    As they say: “ask a stupid question and you will get a stupid answer” …

  • I’m fine with this. Stay the course, Nikon. Just please, if you’re not going to compete in 135 mirrorless, make an F to FE mount adapter. I’d buy a 28mm f/1.8 today if I could use it on my A7RII with no issues.

  • I like Nikon, I’ve owned several of their cameras over the years and I still own many Nikon lenses. I absolutely want Nikon to succeed in the future, but these comments echo precisely what I fear most about Nikon’s ability to continue as a camera maker, and that is their refusal to change with the times.

    Whether you think mirrorless cameras are garbage or not– that doesn’t really matter– because whatever form the high quality ILC’s of 2025 take, it will absolutely not be the current, huge DSLR form factor that’s still the foundation of all of Nikon’s serious cameras.

    The real problem is Nikon’s inability or refusal to evolve in the fundamental ways necessary to compete with the new ideas in the marketplace now. It really has nothing to do with “this” or “that” technology. Bringing out their own version of a GoPro 9 years after the first GoPro Hero model launched was a total embarrassment to watch. How many years did we hear rumors about their “big” action camera plans? And is it either cheaper or better than the new Hero 5? No. It looks just like polish applied to the railings of the Titanic before its maiden voyage.

    Nikon’s core users like yourselves need to demand more from Nikon– not make excuses for them doing business as usual in a market that’s rapidly changing in important ways.

    Where Canon can sometimes appear a victim of its own arrogance, Nikon simply appears stubborn and out of touch. Should Nikon make a serious full frame mirrorless camera? Of course! With no question! Even if it’s only to remain a competitive company so that it can also continue to make the DLSR relics hearkening back to the film era that you all love to shoot with.

    I can’t believe there’s even a debate about whether Nikon should take FF mirrorless cameras seriously as we head into 2017.

  • TwoMetreBill

    At Nikon cameras are just a cash cow to feed their other businesses. Why invest in a business that is evaporating? It is not just the collapse of the camera industry but Nikon’s share is down from almost 40% to 28% in a year.

  • A-Sign

    Nikon needs to wake up. They should offer mirrorless APS-C and mirrorless fullframe. It nos not about to cannibalize their DSLRs but to leave customers a choice what they want tu use.

  • A-Sign

    PS: It baffles me how Nikon fails to see how many Nikon users have switched to the FUJI X recently. That should be a warning sign.

  • Melbar

    thom hogan will love to hear that….. ROTFL….

  • KC

    It is fascinating to watch the implosion of an industry at the hands of smart phones.

    There will undoubtedly be a need for high end photography gear but it is anyones guess who the surviving manufacturers will be.

    Rarely do the industry stalwarts survive in this type of industry disruption…

    • Max

      Maybe most will survive, but just shrink and only offer pro cameras and equipment?
      I imagine it will also make said equipment much more expensive.

      • KC

        Undoubtedly the products lines will shrink, offering primarily high end enthusiast and pro gear. Some players will exit or sell their line to another provider.

        I suspect you are 100% correct in that said equipment will increase dramatically in price.

  • Zak Zoezie

    As an amateur I stepped into Nikon gear a few years back with the D750 because it is a high quality solution which is relatively compact (compared to other FF DSLRs), its FF format gives me great DOF flexibility and last but not least there are a huge amount of great new and used AF & MF lenses I can use natively (without a bloody adapter) from Nikon & compatible 3th party vendors. I understand people begging for mirrorless tech for certain reasons, but honestly having the D750 I’m not hungry for all that mirrorless stuff. The only thing I’m interested in to buy extra is great additional lenses to further extend my photography possibilities in terms of creativity, and boy, do I have lots of choices available ! Tons and tons of lenses all natively compatible with the D750 ! So thank you Nikon for making great gear the past decades, I benefit and enjoy it a lot and I really hope you keep going as you’re doing for many more generations to come … Many congrats from my side !

  • peevee

    Pouring big investments into a rapidly shrinking market on which you are one of 2 biggest players anyway is not even a decent business strategy – it is a strategy to lose a lot of money needlessly.

    On the other hand, if they’d just combined full-frame F-mount with Nikon 1’s EVF and OSPDAF technology, new R&D would be minimal (no need to create a lot of lenses needlessly), and existing Nikon customers who want a lighter, cheaper FF camera would be satisfied (no mirror mechanism + no big heavy pentaprism + no separate AF module = big savings in weight and cost).

    Their new high-speed sensor from D5 would be perfect for that, just needs slightly different glass stack on top.

  • Back to top