Nikon cuts forecasts due to poor mirrorless sales in US and Europe

Nikon financial results

Nikon published their latest financial results and cut their future full-year forecast due to disappointing mirrorless cameras (Nikon 1) sales. The Nikon Imaging division now expects to sell 6.55 million units instead of the previously planned 7.1 million. The operating profit forecast was also cut to 65 billion yen from the previously projected 85 billion yen.

Nikon blamed US and Europe for their slow sales of Nikon 1 products:

"In Europe and the U.S. the ratio of mirrorless to SLRs hasn't grown at all, unlike in Asia, where it's quite popular with women because it's light. We had higher expectations for other regions. But people who like cameras tend to just go for SLRs, even though they're very heavy." (Nikon Imaging president Yasuyuki Okamoto via Reuters)

In contrast to US and Europe, mirrorless sales in Japan grew 16.8% this year. Compact camera shipments fell 48%.

In the future Nikon may start offering different products in different regions based on the local demand.

Here are few screen grabs from Nikon's presentation material:


This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • fools gold

    Well then, stop make the crappy Nikon 1 and dump aston kutcher and then you will save a lot of money for better stuff.

    • umeshrw

      Not to mention give people what they are actually asking for.

      • Remedy

        Let me guess… D400?

        • D400, full frame mirrorless, as D700 successor (if you insisted there was already one in person, I’d punch you in the groin–man or woman), and maybe some DX lenses. Oh, and lenses for any mirrorless system that have a focus ring.

          I think most people would have been happy if a D400 was just a D7100 with double the buffer and one more FPS. Or two more FPS at 2x crop. People are antsy about that one because there’s no tech reason for it to not exist today. And it’s overdue. Nikon’s tech and marketing departments have set up conflicting expectations in consumers. Thus, all the complaining. And it’s pretty valid.

          The beatings will continue until morale improves.

          • umeshrw

            “I think most people would have been happy if a D400 was just a D7100 with double the buffer and one more FPS. Or two more FPS at 2x crop. People are antsy about that one because there’s no tech reason for it to not exist today. And it’s overdue.”
            Very true . You hit the nail there.

            • zoetmb

              I disagree. The D400 has to have the better body and controls that the D200 and D300 had. It should essentially be a DX D800 with slightly lesser body construction at a D300 price. The camera you describe should be the D7200.

            • umeshrw

              You too are right. Hence ” Most people would have been happy” . Even I am not from most people category. But then not everybody needs tough body or quick UI of DXXX lineup. But buffer is essential.

            • lefantome

              If Nikon decides to keep the D300/400 product line (just like Canon with its 7D. Obviously the two brands have been hesitating and waiting), the D400 has to be something solid with outstanding performance, i.e. better than D7000/7100 in many aspects.

              P.S. IMHO the D800’s body doesn’t feel good enough comparing to its predecessor. So please don’t make D400 with a D800 shell.

          • GlobalGuy

            Don’t forget serious PANCAKE PRIMES, if you are going to suggest a full-frame mirrorless. Otherwise, a DX mirrorless is more sense, based on cost of lenses for new users & weight. Although making 1 fullframe mirrorless, even if a huge financial risk that if failed might result in a time body, would truly show remarkable leadership from Nikon.

        • carl Koslowski

          no APSC or FF Mirrorless
          with INBUILT wifi, gps, tiltable screen focus peaking, 10 frames per second, shortly: Whats now standard among highend mirrorless and an need for a company claiming technological leadership

          • Remedy

            “Tiltable” screen = retarded ergonomics, the whole row of buttons on left side of the screen would be gone = pure stupidity. So thanks, but no, thanks.

            • umeshrw

              Maybe screen could tilt downwards.Then the button layout wouldn’t suffer. Some p/s cams have it.

        • umeshrw

          Now that was unnecessary. But you really cannot say that people are not asking for D400. Even I was asking for it until some time ago. Then I got a D 800e when my 300 conked off . Not to say I would still love to buy a 400 when it comes out.( I hope it comes out)

        • CubeAce at flickr

          A D400 is well overdue.
          I’ve clung to my D300 for too long and no I don’t think the D7100 is for me, or the D800 in crop mode.
          The D600,(oil problems aside) has too slow a top shutter speed and I don’t trust it to hang upside down on an R strap. Ergonomically I’m not happy with either of them.
          I think the D3 / D700 debacle which cut D3 sales hit Nikon hard and created hard core followers of the D700. If it was a mistake it was a brilliant one.
          The D700 was and is a great camera. It pairs well with the D300 except in low light where the D300 is left behind.
          As a pair of working cameras they have been and still are a good team up, and useful, and good value.
          Don’t tell me either the D800 is the replacement for the D700, it isn’t for sports or action or event photography.
          Mirrorless cameras have not sold in my opinion because they are not as good at focusing for action, or low light, or low contrast shots. The quality is there when you can get them to work but it’s too hit and miss and the focusing systems for action too slow.
          The D800 is a great replacement for the D3X.
          So is the D4 for the D3, but anything else in the semi pro bracket seems to have been abandoned for mirrorless systems.
          I think they are missing a reasonably sized market section.
          Where do aspiring people go to now? FX?
          D7100? Even Nikon said it was not the pinnacle of DX and D300s just confuses the current range now. It doesn’t make sense within the range.
          So yes, a D400 or equivalent please.

    • Florence Griffith

      the Nikon 1 is actually quite a nice camera…it’s not a dslr…it is not supposed to be…and actually it is quite remarkable for shooting in monochrome…

  • Cam

    Writings on the wall for Nikon, its a fast paced evolution of Phone tech thats gaining popularity and Nikon you are being left behind. I use a D3s when i need something decent to publish, the rest of the time my phone does a decent enough job of everyday snaps and memories.

  • Joel Brogmar

    Maybe it’s time for Nikon to create something good at the mirrorless front instead of burying the head in the sand and beeing afraid of that a good mirrorless camera would cannibalize on their dslr sales…

    • Arkasai

      I think they were intimidated by the mature product lines of Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus. The 1 made a lot of business and economical sense at the time but the demand for an expensive point and shoot mirrorless wasn’t anywhere outside of Japan.

      If they want to save the 1 and some of the engineering costs associated with it, keep the mount and design a body with great ergonomics for pros, but keep the current design for consumers. That way, you’ll net people with the cheaper consumer models (start them around $300 with lens) and make them immediately want the pro version once they’ve outgrown the point and shoot. Pros will have a genuine option and consumers wont feel forced to learn how a camera works.

    • twoomy

      A full-frame mirrorless camera would be the ultimate. Unfortunately, Nikon and Canon would never do this because of cannibalizing SLR sales. Sony will be the company that goes there. I’d be excited except I anticipate that lens selection will be lame (judging by the NEX system several years on).

      • Arkasai

        I think a built in removable focal length reducer with a smaller sensor is the way to go. It’s cheaper and if the body is sturdy enough people will use full frame lenses on it.

      • GlobalGuy

        It WOUDN’T cannibalize sales — it would be ADDITIONAL sales or just plain sales. I don’t know why people always say “cannibalize” as if that’s a real logic — these companies only care that they are making sales, not which products are making the sales. Nikon didn’t always have a flagship full-frame and it didn’t always have a prosumer full-frame. It mostly has P&S. So I’m really not understanding the cannibalization arguments. I think they just don’t have the data or confidence they need to make it work + the production investment went to CX (it could have as easily went to a DX or FX mirrorless, but some exec already signed the order for the new designs). Nikon wanted to expand the market, they didn’t care about cannibalization. As long as they sell a Nikon, that’s what matters. CX was a play to expand the userbase — a play that failed, because they missed that their P&S users are NOT moving to cheaper DX DSLRs right now (so WHY would they go to a more expensive CX? — this group is so sensitive to PRICE) and they didn’t realize that their full-frame & D300 users might want a SERIOUS mirrorless and would passionately snap one up………. if only Nikon had offered one (which Nikon did not do — but this group is so sensitive to FEATURES). Thus, Nikon failed to make the price or the features enticing to any particular group, the most loyal being their DSLR users, who could have been their champions and, instead, are mocking them (like me), now.

  • John M

    What? The U.S. and Europe aren’t interested in an overpriced mirrorless camera with an undersized sensor? Can’t imagine what the problem is there.

    • Remedy

      Call me racist but can it be that the bigger eyes of yanks and Europeans has something to do with it? I mean as if they saw better what they are buying? ;D

      just kiddin -.-

      • DKBK85

        Yep, pretty racist.

      • gly

        …not cool…. why do you gotta be like that? kidding or not you’re perpetuating a stereotype and making it acceptable to be racist, after your comment is followed by “just kidding”. Remedy, is that really ok to you?

      • Steve

        Say that in the face of an asian person and we’ll see who has the smaller eyes in the end.

        • collin brown

          When did “orientals” become “Asians”.

          • GlobalGuy

            This is a generational term — “Oriental” is strongly preferred by (even East Asians) of my parent’s and grandparents’ generation. Many middle aged new immigrant Asians refer to themselves as “Oriental”.

            However, the younger generation has accepted that “orientalism” is the fetish-ization, racism and stereotypes of East and Southern Asians as sexy, magical, very poor or very science-y people. To separate Orientalism from Asian culture, “Asian” is preferred over “Oriental.” Though the two are quite interchangeable and there is no err in doing so, just as there is no difference in saying “Occidental” or “Western” culture.

            • A. Lurker

              I believe “Oriental” and “Occidental”, as well as “Oceanic” and “Negroid” are (perhaps old and passe) racial classifications from the scientific community. Terms like “Asian” are geographically based and perhaps even lay terms.

              It doesn’t matter anymore, in part because people are too thin-skinned and short-tempered to engage in civil discussion about such topics even though such discussion is sorely needed.

              Stick to cameras.

      • robert

        yes, I hate racists and asians. thats just terrible..

      • syd

        Actually it’s pretty funny, give the guy a break and lighten up…

        Remember the seventies ad (or was it a movie):

        “Japan makes better electronics because our technicians are shorter and see the electronics better during assembly. That’s why our motto is:

        Made in Japan, because Americans are just too damn tall!”

        If we can’t laugh at ourselves……..

        PS I’m an aussie.

        • fjfjjj

          It was from the 1990 movie “Crazy People” in the moment just before political correctness made this type of humor unpopular in America.

          What’s unfortunate is that you can no longer comment on Asian people having a particular eye shape. They have one. Get over it. But what’s not cool is saying that Caucasians see better.

          • Racist Remedy

            @ aussie syd
            @ fjfjj
            We here at the klan greatly appreciate your membership and would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that we are equal opportunity racist. To maintenance of your lifetime membership please renounce any and all remaining soul you may have.

          • Remedy

            This just in: IT WAS A FKING JOKE!. Back to the studio.

            • Racist Remedy

              Remedy, there you go again… Clearly you have no understanding which is not a surprise. Labelling your racist comment as a ‘joke’ or following it with ‘just kidding’ on a PUBLIC forum is NOT OK …
              LOOK, whatever racist comments you have floating around in your head, keep it to yourself, your friends, or your family.

        • Racist Aussie

          “Actually it’s pretty funny, give the guy a break and lighten up…”
          Ok soooory… I didn’t know there was a “happy hour” for being PUBLICALY RACIST.

    • Remedy

      It was a fking joke, geez get some fking self distance.

      • Racist Remedy

        Yes everyone, its a ‘joke’… you’re perfectly ok to make a racist comment as long as its followed by ‘just kidding’. Isn’t that right Remedy?

  • photo-Jack

    to me that is no surprise. Instead of doing Nikon 1 and Nikon A on pro level like Fuji (and Fuji seems to be in business!) Nikon deceides to give the consumers another trendy toy. It was against Nikons traditions to go into fashion products.
    I have Nikon DSLRs & lenses, but now that I could imagine to go for a systemcamera in addition, there is no suitable offer from Nikon.
    Of course I do have some lenses, those which I’d buy immediately aren’t offered by Nikon or are due for an update since long.
    I think Nikon has to reconsider their philosophy.

    • carl koslowski

      I wonder, why the sales stayed on such a high level till now. I am, was a Nikon Shooter since 1999, F100, D7000 and currently D 800.
      The D7000 I didn’t like for their autofocus, the D800 for their high mpix, low speed and the dimensions.
      NIkon and Canon didn’t move forward innovationwise since 4 or 5 years. Latest market acess with lame mirrorless system ( Canon) or small sensor and limited system ( Nikon V) without any need. They COULD deliver thrilling products like a OMD or now GX7. Latest when Sony shows up with a compact ultrafast and professional FF Mirrorless, the hour of truth has come.
      Think Nokia.

      • Maverick

        As a regular follower of NR, I have been reading Comments posted by other readers from a long time. I can remember times, when people talking about shifting to other camps used to bring in lot of criticism. Now, If anyone looks at the comments this post has generated. It clearly shows a small cross-section of loyal nikonians mindset.

        I worked as a sales guy, with experience, I can state that, this kind of changing mindset is very dangerous for a company.

        Whatever the company does in future, it will be looked up skeptically even by the most loyal client.

        Nikon execs should be looking at this site often to have a reality check.

  • I think this is good news and it will mean we’re finally going to get the pro-mirrorless camera we all want.

  • Edgard

    Maybe now they see people outside Asia don’t want toys… we want tools.

  • HotDuckZ

    I thing Nikon know that enthusiast need D3s that came with Mirrorless size but they just want to introduced something for amateur first.

  • v1ian

    I hope they male the simple and necessary changes to fix the 1 system
    1. Improve DR, and high iso performance
    2. Enable bracketing
    3. Enable multiple focus points when using ft1 adapter
    4. 25p frame rate for video
    5. Full resolution high speed video: 1080p 400fps, and 720p 1200 fps

    • longzoom

      That is what I do say every day – V system needs new sensor, take a look at RX 100-2 – phenomenal success! Nikon already has very good lenses line for V – just get a new sensor! Looks like Zoetmb is correct – they afraid of loosing market for the consumer DSLR models. Yeah, some executives MUST be fired!

  • zoetmb

    Actually, they say that sales targets could not be achieved in Americas, Europe or Asia (excluding China). So where were they achieved aside from China? South America, Africa, Antarctica and Australia? I’m sure there’s tons of sales in those markets.

    While certainly the crappy world economy plays a role, Nikon has no one to blame but themselves. EVERYONE knew that camera phones would replace P&S sales, but Nikon did nothing but put out a ton of look-alike mostly uninspired models year after year. OK, they did put out the Nikon 1 series, but there’s no there there. They should start over with a Nikon 2 line that uses at least a DX sensor, but any new lenses will have to be compatible with the Nikon 1 line. In the DSLR and lens lines, they pushed prices up, substantially ignored customer service and then wondered why, in a tough economy, consumers didn’t bite. The fact that they still sold 3.1 million p-and-s units in the first quarter is miraculous.

    Camera phones are catching up so fast, IMO, Nikon is danger of losing the market for the low end of the DSLR line as well within another three years.

    IMO, the senior executives of Nikon Imaging should be fired.

    • lefantome

      In fact in China I can seldom see any Nikon 1 users either…

  • if this happens, it will be sad, considering a camera system is supposed to be a long-term play. there is going to be a ton of nikon-scorned folks out there. perhaps the 1 system is just a bit ahead of it’s time. In 5 years when CX sized sensors have clean ISO6400, I imagine many systems with this sensor size. the lenses can be made smaller and the cost to manufacture a small sensor system is much lower. yes DX and FX will always be proportionally better, but a small cheap camera with clean ISO6400 is all the average people really want.

  • studor13

    People who don’t have the 1 system should shut up because they have no idea what they are talking about.

    I have the D300, D800 and more than 30 Nikkor lenses. (Including the holy trinity)

    Recently, I bought the V1 and let me tell you it ain’t no toy.

    Overpriced? Yes, when it first came out, and for sure Nikon made a mistake there. (I got it for 350 euros with the 10mm f2.8 lens)

    I now have the 18.5mm as well as the 11-27.5mm. All three are fantastic lenses – for still as well as video.

    If you are looking for creamy smooth bokeh then look elsewhere. This is not what the system is about.

    Have a look at the following shot comparisons between a D800+50mm f1.4 AFS and V1+18.5mm.

    As I said, it ain’t for Bokeh droolers (I have a D800 for that) but it’s one hell of a camera.

    It is what it is.

    • I don’t think the Nikon 1 is a bad camera, but considering the other options available today, I can see why Nikon is having a problem selling them. If they had come up with the Nikon 1 back in 2008/2009, I think many people would have bought into the system. Nikon was late to the game and did not bring anything exciting with the Nikon 1.

      • Sports

        They did bring the best autofocus of the bunch, didn’t they?
        Would also have worked fine with a bigger sensor, of course.

        • My name here

          why isn’t it on the $6000 D4 then?

          • lefantome

            Maybe it’s because that needs to sacrifice some pixels on the CMOS… Let’s the dual layer sensor can be used on the D5 generation, which can improve both normal and liveview autofocus.

        • GlobalGuy

          To me, it still seems like a toy. Panasonics offering seems stronger and I’m not even clear on the details — all I know is that Panasonics, Olympus’s, Sony’s offerings scream, “We’re serious.”, whereas, Nikon’s screams, “I AM A TOY”. Nikon made a serious miscalculation — I believe they intended to bring P&S user UP INTO mirrorless. But what they are realizing is that they need to make mirrorless popular with their DSLR buyers first and that their DSLR customers would have been the FIRST to buy a “serious” mirrorless.

          I would love to see a matrix on every current generation of mirrorless camera and see where Nikon’s falls on features and specs and quality. On looks alone (and the way too simple handling) I can’t take it seriously. Also, I’ve never gotten one to focus quickly in a Best Buy — why is that? I am a D700 user and my D700 focuses instantly. But in the store, these Nikon 1s don’t make sense to me or feel right. Love Nikons — but I wish they would make something much much more serious in mirrorless, to complement my DSLR. I would have 2 Nikon cameras right now and a lot of mirrorless lenses, if Nikon had only made a contender. I am a DSLR user. By contrast, I’m pretty sure that P&S users are going to their Android phones or getting a less expensive entry level DSLR. Lets face it — the pricing was not good for the specs.

          • Johno

            I think Nikon is in serious trouble under this management.

      • lefantome

        I don’t like the design of Nikon 1: neither the appearance or the ergonomics. As a small sensor camera, the camera itself doesn’t feel compact at all. After trying the Nikon 1 cameras for several times I still prefer the Sony RX100 (though not perfect either). I don’t know what the Nikon R&D or marketing is thinking…The industrial design is far behind that of Sony, Pana, Olympus, Fuji… not to mention Canon.

        • Johno

          Agree completely….

        • Photoretouchpro

          Yup, I think people who would buy the S1 or J1/2/3 would buy as kit and be done. If they would even buy a compact with a changeable lens. The V1/2 are fuugly, the flash options are ridiculous and missing crucial features. I cant get past the hideousness of the OM-D even though the features are excellent. The Nex-6 is very close to what is desired and the GX-7 may be the chosen one.

      • Thom Hogan

        The irony is that there are at least six Nikon 1’s on my Botswana safari. Yet Nikon insists on trying to market this as a women’s camera.

        That’s the problem I have with doing product management from a “target market” top down approach. What’s the biggest group not currently buying cameras? Women. What would they want in a camera? Smaller, simpler, fashion (colors). This is as opposed to “what do people use cameras for, and what are the biggest unsolved problems?” The Nikon 1 actually solves some interesting problems. Just not the ones Nikon thought they were solving.

    • I’m pretty loyal to Nikon, but I picked up a GX1 a year back for video. And then another. And a bunch of lenses. And I’ll be buying their new GX7 before I buy a D800 or eventual D400.

      And I do this for a living.

      Nikon missed the boat for working folks and amateurs. The GX7 is absolutely what the 1 series should have been. Heck, I don’t even care about sensor size or resolution–if the V1 were half as usable as my GX1 is, I’d have been in. But with an interface from a Coolpix from 2 gens back, and no MF on the lenses. And an adapter that chops the bokeh on my fast lenses. And a new model that with unnecessary bulk…Nikon appears to believe “run, don’t walk” in the completely wrong direction.

      It wasn’t a timing thing. If Nikon existed in a vacuum, without some of the amazing cameras it competes against, they’d sell a ton of these mediocre V1/V2 cameras. As is, it looks like Nikon got caught with their pants down. And instead of pulling them up, they’re trying to call them shoes. It’s just…sad.

      • GlobalGuy

        THANK YOU. I love Nikon cameras and lenses for the most part — but I feel 100% the same way. Everything from their pricing to their specs to their presentation screamed amateur or lacking-relative-value. Nikon should have known that they would need to start with their DSLR market users to COMPLEMENT their DSLR, a light slim body of extremely high quality that DSLR users were BEGGING FOR. Instead, they made something that P&S users DIDN’T ask for, who, let’s face it, even though there are more of them, are using their cell phones now instead of the Nikon 1s. If Nikon had captured its DSLR users first (for I too am going to wander off in an other-than Nikon direction for mirrorless), it could have created a huge and loyal fan base. It failed to do so and failed its DSLR users — who now feel pretty ridiculous for having waited for Nikon to make a mirrorless and are ready to buy other brands. A lot of those who go out and buy a Panny or Oly or Sony are going to end up sticking with that brand. Meanwhile, the P&S users have very FEW passionate loyal users of Nikon 1 who have come from advanced DSLR userbase (who offer the most insight and passion), thus, they have few cheerleaders to inspire them to buy a Nikon 1 either. You made a HUGE error, Nikon.

        • zzz

          Completely agree! Make V3 with a larger sensor.

          • lefantome

            That doesn’t make sense… The Nikon DSLRs have confusing model numbers, and I don’t think Nikon likes that to happen with Nikon 1 again. It would be another series if there’s any larger sensor mirrorless camera model from Nikon.

        • lefantome

          According to my observation on Nikon’s product design, marketing and services quality here in China, it seems they don’t know or care about what is really happening in the market. They are making such a huge mistake that I’ve started to wonder whether I should sell my Nikon gears and choose another brand…

          • This is why the next year or two will be crucial for Nikon. A lot of people will start looking for alternatives. (if they already haven’t) Nikon still has an advantage in the fast tele lenses and full frame cameras, but once other companies start going in this market (Pentax, Sony, Sigma), they will be in real trouble. The interesting part is that Nikon has the know how to get pretty much everything done and maybe even better than the competition, but they won’t because they are afraid.

            • lefantome

              Totally agree. At this moment the lack of courage and being conservative could only bring serious results: look what Sony has done.

              And Nikon’s advantages accumulated in the DSLR sector is not obvious compared to Canon, either. IMHO Canon has much clearer thinking on the product paths and much much better marketing as well as more tech reservation, which are promises of long and stable existence–none of us would buy from a brand that will soon extinct. At least in China there are more Canon users, if not much more.

              Months ago I considered switching brand (to Canon) but the bunch of lenses and other troubles switching system held me back. But next time I don’t know.

              Let’s wait for the next tens of months. The terrible thing is when masses of people start to leave the Nikon camp, it would be impossible to stop more from leaving… Nikon has to prevent that in advance.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, it’s not because they’re afraid. It’s because they don’t have to.

              Pentax is down to making less than 100k DSLRs a year. Sony hasn’t taken any new DSLR market share. Sigma’s DSLR market share isn’t measurable. Yet DSLRs are the driver at both Canon and Nikon. For Canon, 84% of the imaging group’s sales, while for Nikon 80%. Put in perspective, that means that about 60% of ALL of Nikon’s sales of everything they make are DSLRs. You don’t disrupt that by doing something else unless you absolutely know that the something else will increase sales.

              And that’s the problem. SLT didn’t increase sales. Mirrorless only had a temporary increase in sales. Everyone’s poking around with DSLR alternatives, but no one seems to be willing to make a bet on the company about what that might be other than perhaps Sony. But Sony has to make that kind of gamble or else be resigned to being a distant #3 that’s probably unprofitable at making DSLRs.

            • Johno

              Tom, Nikon doesn’t control the market any longer. Nikon does have to respond or lose.

            • Florence Griffith

              Well I have a couple Nikon bodies and I will say they are losing ….trying to protect their DSLR market has just hurt them tremendously…especially now with the sony a7 and a7r…those systems are not fully developed yet…but the salvo has been fired and I think Nikon and Canon are on their way out…mostly due to not being innovative and progressive

          • Sem

            I bought a V1 for myself last January. I moved up from my phone camera and took a € 250,– deal and invested a ‘litle’ (€ 500 or so) in this system too. I was a complete n00b in photography, but learned a lot since then. This is what I’ve come to believe:

            Nikon made a mistake. I know this, because results didn’t meet Nikon’s intentions/predictions. But they’re to deep in to quit. Simple as that.

            I also believe that Nikon realizes they’ve gone down this road and have quite a bit early adopters who bought and love the Nikon 1 series. They can’t be ignored and Nikon isn’t ignoring them so far. (that’s a ‘whoohooo’ for me). I think Nikon can’t afford to abandon the Nikon 1 series yet, period. They’ve got past the early-adopter-fase, which means the Nikon 1 series are here to stay for at least a while.
            What I think Nikon should do is to make the Nikon 1 series complete, to make sure nobody who invested in his/her Nikon 1 is disapointed and gets stuck with a system that’s not finished. A few more lenses and accessoires. A body more or two and then let Nikon 1 bleed out.
            Meanwhile, introduce a new mirrorless system which meets the demands. Do it in a year or two. Amaze everyone. Do it, and do it right. Learn form your judgement errors and use the experience.
            Final thought: I love my V1. I take it anywhere I go. It’s my first camera I use to get seriously into photography and I like where it’s getting me. I understand very well what I want in a next camera, which wil be a DSLR. I know what I want in DOF, IQ, controls, etc. and by the time I’ve got the money and time, I know which DSLR can meet my needs. But I will NEVER badmouth my V1 or the ‘Nikon 1 series’ for that mather, because I believe it’s a great system. Period. Not even Nikon, because I think they’ve made an honest mistake and find themselves in a situation that is difficult to get out of. They didn’t make a bad product, they just didn’t make something the majority needs/wants.

            • lefantome

              Well I’m concerned whether introducing another mirrorless product line 1~2 year later would be too late. On one hand Sony/Pana/Fuji/Oly are doing really great jobs while on the other Canon obviously has more users and better marketing capability. It won’t be easy for Nikon to maintain its market share in the mirrorless sector.

            • Sem

              I have to agree.

          • Johno

            I’m thinking the same thing.

        • Kyle Farris

          You’re exactly right. I actually bought my father-in-law a Nikon V1 for Christmas last year. He loves the camera… when he uses it. More often than not, though, he’s posting pictures to Facebook that he shot with his iPhone and not his V1. Sigh…

          • Let’s look at the Nikon 1 from another perspective – in the same sized body, Sony was able to fit a full frame sensor (in the RX1). Talking about innovation. Of course the RX1 is expensive and the AF is not as good, but give them 2 more years and watch what they will come up with. 4-5 years ago, the only good digital cameras were from Nikon and Canon. Things have changed significantly since.

            • Remedy

              If RX1 is the same size as Nikon 1 then I am Princess Victoria…. and I’m not.

            • well the lens of the Rx1 is bigger, but I think the body is actually the same size

            • Thom Hogan

              Size is just one variable camera makers have to deal with. I’d argue that really small cameras with a fixed prime lens are probably okay, but once you start piling on focal range, low mass and small size become potential handling problems. Even with a Nikon 1 and F-mount lenses, you find that you’re doing most of your handling stabilization with the lens, not the camera. As I’ve written many times, we can have FX cameras that are quite small, smaller than the RX100, actually. That might not be the right design decision, however.

              Also, comparing what Sony might do two years from now versus what Nikon did two years AGO is not a very valid argument. In tech, you’re only as good as what you put on the market today. I’ll be the first one to say that Nikon tends to be lagging in many attributes of its products and especially in DX lenses, but they’re not lagging by much, and in places where it counts (focus, image quality, etc.), they certainly can’t be said to be lagging.

              There are two broad possibilities for the future: (1) camera sales continue to decline (ala the 90’s in film) and the two dominate players do enough to continue to dominate (remember, Sony’s spending lots of R&D money to try to build a “better DSLR” and hasn’t succeeded yet; coffers aren’t bottomless); (2) someone disrupts cameras with a technology/innovation/approach that restarts a buying spree. Canon and Nikon are best served by #1 at the moment, Sony are best served by #2. The debatable thing is this: how likely is #2, because #1 is a given.

            • Johno

              Thom, in my post just before yours I indicated that I thought Nikon is out of touch with their consumer base. I agree with you. Nikon is not the only game in town. I wish I wasn’t so invested in Nikon. If I could dump this stuff and move to Canon or Sony I would if I could even break even. Nikon is lost.

            • Johno

              Nikon fails to listen to their customer base. They are a dollar short and a day late. They fail to respond to their market asking for a D400. Instead they make Coolpix and a Nikon 1 with a smaller sensor than their competition. Getting into the smart phone market now will result in the same failure. The D800 is great but expensive and has more MP’s than most of us need, a D600 which is basically a D7100 with an FX sensor that may or may not handle larger lenses. Nothing in between for the DX pro market. They will never learn that we are always telling them what we want/need. They tell us what we want/need. Doesn’t work that way. They never share their plans with the consumers so planning is difficult and as a result stunts their sales. Why would I buy lenses that may become obsolete based on their next offering. I don’t expect them to be specific about what they will offer but let us know that we can count on continuity with our investments in their products.

            • lefantome

              Sony always has the best industrial design… The RX1 and RX100 are truly amazing cameras. As for the RX1, a FX sensor with a decent Zeiss 35/2 lens do worth the price–especially considering the machine costs less than 200000 yen in Japan.

        • Graham

          I agree entirely. This may be Nikon’s last chance to hold onto its many customers who have put off until now the choice of how to jump to mirrorless. They have the lenses (most of the others’ compare relatively poorly: that’s a different conversation though, not for these columns); now they must honour what their customer base has been waiting for so patiently — or lose out for ever!

  • Merv S

    It didn’t help Nikon when sites like DxOMark reported that camera models after the J1 and V1 had slightly worse picture quality.

    • 1j2

      According to sources like DXO or Photozone the Nikon 1 would have to cause eye cancer with their poor image quality. But this is not what I see when looking at real life photos. This camera is capable of taking very sharp images and with the 1.8/18 it can even create quite bokelicious photos. Not as good as the bigger sensors but for most occasions good enough to seperate a person from the background. I’m starting to believe that these websites with their measurements are overrated.

      • Merv S

        I don’t disagree that these sites are overrated, but it could affect purchase decisions.

  • Janne Hämäläinen

    Bad results are not surprising at all as other people said already. Take a look e.g. for P7700 compact. It does everything Nikon 1 does and even more. Other brands (Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji) have done great job already so those should be outperformed at least if continuing on this path. Unfortunately current Nikon 1 toy cameras can’t do it. This reminds me that long era of bad Coolpix cameras that were just awful. Why do they want to do the same mistake again with Nikon 1 ?

  • Nikon-man

    I have a message for Nikon – I hope they are listening. The Nikon 1 is a great camera, but not at $500~$800. Get it down to $300~500 and you will have a winner. If that means foregoing the magnesium chassis – then while it will lower the quality of the camera on one hand, it will make it more competitive.

    The S version should be an entry level camera with a $300 entry level price. The V version can still cost $500, but $800 is not going to cut it.

    And while you are at it – slash the prices of the Nikon Coolpix A.

    You are making some fine cameras, but you can’t expect to get Leica prices – please rethink your marketing strategy.

    As the owner of a Nikon V1 (that I bought for $299 in Dec 12) I wish Nikon success with the Nikon 1 line – if nothing else than to protect my investment.

    • That’s exactly the point – there is nothing wrong with the Nikon 1 product line for what it is, but for the same price I believe there are better options out there.

      • Spy Black

        No hot shoe and no PSAM make Nikon 1 a dull boy. It’s a camera that wants to be two things at once and isn’t either one. An overpriced point and shoot with brain-dead controls and lenses aimed (and priced) at serious photographers creates confusion at best. That’s why it failed, and failed it has.That concept may fly in Asia, but sinks like a lead zeppelin in the west.

        • Kyle Farris

          Nikon made some baffling choices with their Nikon 1 line… there is not doubt about that. I honestly think $300-$350 is the most anyone would feel comfortable paying for one. Most people want a camera that “makes the background all blurry”. So, they buy a Nikon 1 thinking they can get bokeh and realize they have to spend an extra $900 on a lens (32mm f/1.2) to get. If I was a n00b, I’d be pretty pissed off too. A D3100 with 50 f/1.8, on the other hand, will get you some bokeh for about $400.

          People love their bokeh because that’s “what makes their photos look cool”. This is not a joke… today I showed a friend of mine that they can create shallow depth of field with their iPhone if they essentially take macro shots with stuff far off in the background. Her mind was officially blown and proceded to take like 30 pictures of her computer mouse with various blurry things in the background. But then she was kinda perturbed when she couldn’t get the same effect from more than a foot away. Yes, this is who Nikon is marketing to. If they can create a bokeh machine for less than $300 that fits in someone’s pocket or purse, they’ll be banking BIG TIME.

          • Spy Black

            The entire system would have to be appropriately priced, not just the body and kit lens. You can’t go charging $300 for a camera and $900 for a lens to put on it.

            It’s design is still crippled with the lack of a standard hot shoe and no PASM dials on anything but the latest even more overpriced top of the line model.

            • Kyle Farris

              Exactly, a non-professional consumer would never do that. To them lenses are accessories and accessories shouldn’t cost more than the device their accessorizing. Pros are used to spending more on lenses than a camera.

  • d7k2v2

    I’m actually surprised the president says that “people who like cameras tend to just go for SLR’s, even though they are heavy”. Wow, no, actually, people who like cameras are plenty interested in mirrorless, just not Nikon’s mirrorless. I am actually a new owner of a Nikon V2 and a few lenses. I’m in love with cameras again and my SLR only comes out on special occasions, the V2 I can carry in my hand all day. Mirrorless is the future. The CX sensor will one day, technology permitting, compete in low light with the bigger sensors, and the small setup theoretically permits some really small, fast, and sharp lenses. I’m looking forward to the future of CX. Yasuyuki Okamoto is out of touch it seems.

    • anon

      “The CX sensor will one day, technology permitting, compete in low light with the bigger sensors, and the small setup theoretically permits some really small, fast, and sharp lenses”

      nope.. Becuase as CX gets better, DX and FX will get that much better in front of it. A CX sensor 3 or 4 years from now might match the D4 sensor of now… It’s like people saying a phone will sometime match a DSLR. It’s ridiculous. I’m not saying CX is bad. It’s just not possible to be physically as good. you’re CX bokeh will NEVER match that of a DX which will NEVER match that of FX.

      • d7k2v2

        Not really, DX and FX have topped out at ISO6400. Low noise on the D7000, D600, and D7100, D4, D800 are all comparable, no big leap from last generation to this one. There is essentially no noise, in practical terms, on todays sensors unless you get into stupid high iso beyon ISO 6400 that is meaningless. Do you shoot at iso 12,800 on a routine basis? If so, you shouldn’t, there are other mechanisms to get to the result you requre instead of pushing iso into the stratosphere.

        CX is bad at ISO800. I guarantee that will improve, which is the point of my comment. And when it does, CX will be disireable becasue of it’s size.

        • anon

          if I need to deal with a body and a couple lenses, I’m going to my FX because of the ease of control and ergonomics (weight/size is irrelevant). The CX body, at least the first gen, i tried was 90% menu driven.. terrible… Cameras aren’t just about image quality for people who shoot in manual.. it’s about ease of control and ergonomics. for someone with big hands, the CX bodies are a disaster to hold onto and manipulate. So I would go for a DSLR because of the size. if i need a small camera to haul around, I’ll go buy a g1x, g15 or p7700.

          Did i mention ISO? I don’t think i did… but now that you mention it.. Yeah.. The iso is bad on CX. In fact still worse than a d300s. So it will be likely at least a couple years until it catches the current DSLRs. But even when(if) it does, physics will never allow bokeh to change for the format. FX will still have that beat as it always will. unless they build some sort of BOKEH-BOOST effect into the body processing. sounds ridiculous right… but with how much of that effect crap they put into today’s P&Ss, it wouldn’t surprise me.

          • Plug

            I understood bokeh to be the quality, creaminess or whatever, of out of focus parts of an image. I think you meant to say that CX lenses, unless very fast, do not limit depth of field sufficiently. Bokeh and depth of field are very different things. High depth of field can be very useful for landscapes or with long telephotos where it is naturally very limited and the background will be thoroughly isolated anyway, such as in bird photography.

  • Neil

    The problem really lies in a few small details. Price: WAY too high for what it delivers. Marketing: non-existent, who outside of enthusiasts really know it is out there and why it’s useful. Features: the camera makers can’t seem to figure out how to provide a well designed UI and feature mix at a good price.

    Perhaps this is why Fuji’s mirrorless systems are growing in popularity (slowly). They give a roadmap of lenses, are willing to update existing hardware with new firmware with new features, and they are experimenting with new approaches. They’re not perfected by any stretch but I applaud them for trying.

    • Deep_Lurker

      In addition to the price being too high, Nikon snubbed the enthusiasts by not including an enthusiast model in the line. So instead of getting enthusiasts to recommend the Nikon One to their compact-camera using friends, they got those enthusiasts to dis-recommend it.

      Nikon needed to come out with something like the “Z1” that Thom Hogan suggested back in 2011 – a model with a standard hotshoe and lots of external controls. Sort of like the Fuji X-M and X-E, only with the smaller Nikon One sensor – and a lower price to go along with that smaller sensor.

  • One More Thought

    The Nikon 1 series is actually quite good…that’s not the problem. The problem is that the market for mirrorless in the US and Europe is diminishing for all vendors. I think Japan tends to be early adopters of new tech, and appreciates smaller sizes more.

    I live in the US, and it’s hard to fight the inertia of people thinking that a big DSLR is the natural step up from point and shoots if you want the highest quality.

    There’s very little marketing from any mirrorless vendor to counter that perception…Olympus and Panasonic are almost non existent, with Sony and Nikon dabbling in a bit of marketing, but not merely enough. If the average soccer Mom or Dad goes into Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Costco, etc to check out cameras the only ones they will see beyond point and shoots are the DSLRs, with a few small exceptions.

    Right now if you want to check out most of the better mirrorless options in the US, you need to order it online in order to try. One exception would be the Sony stores, but there are too few of them to make any difference.

    At this point it would almost take a market disruption like Apple introducing a mirrorless camera in order to really shake up the market and put mirrorless on the map in the US.

    • fjfjjj

      Internettism of the day: “Not merely enough.”

    • Sahaja

      Lack of marketing may be shortsightedness of the US and European branches or disrtibutors. In Asia I’ve seen huge marketing campaigns for some mirrorless systems.

  • Derp. Build a better mirrorless and they’ll come!

  • 1j2

    I thought the Nikon 1 is a toy before I had one. This camera is amazing. I do Raw Development with NX2 and even at ISO 3200 I barely see any noise in a 13x19cm print. The 10MP are perfect for prints of this size. The AF outperforms my D5100 and it is so small and light that I have it allways with me.

  • ArturAndreasson

    Time to release something new.
    Mirrorless FF yes pls.
    There is 2 cool functions i would like to see.
    Auto stacking function, set start and stop focus point and camera makes the shoots necessary for stacking.
    Also long exposure image building up in display, see the image building up when making a long exposure, a brand have this already.

  • Dweeb

    Nikon enforces high MSRP on D800 cam areas to retain lost revenue in other areas of stupidity.

  • rhlpetrus

    Well, I have the V1, pretty decent camera. But Nikon are being too slow, they should have already produced a ML aps-c with the same AF. And with the 16MP sensor from Sony. I’d buy one tomorrow to replace the d7000.

    • Sahaja

      According to Wisniewski, the on-sensor AF system on the Nikon 1 would not perform anywhere near as well scaled up to larger sensors.

  • joe

    the nikon 1 might be nice because it’s compat but other cameras are compact too and every camera with a bigger sensor will be favoured by the customer. At the moment everybody (and even nikon) is hopping on aps-c sized compacts for good reasons and so that is the final cut with the nikon 1 system. they better come up with another mirrorless camera but they can’t because they have to introduce a new lens system.

    the better hurry now…

  • Guys, I deleted some comments – there is no reason to involve race in the current discussion.

    • BroncoBro

      There is no reason to include race in the discussion of …ANYTHING.

      • I agree.

      • Well, except in the context of a discussion about how race isn’t useful in most discussions. ANYTHING…except that. And maybe a discussion of fetishes. Or history and it’s influence on human behaviour. ANYTHING except those. Which aren’t relevant to a discussion about cameras. Except Japanese ones. Unless you’re racist. Or trolling. But only then. Maybe.

    • Remedy

      There is no reason to not understand BASIC and HARMLESS humor in the current (or any other) discussion.

  • Funduro

    Nikon Coolpix L28 $120, Nikon Coolpix A $1,100.

    You see a problem here ?

  • John W

    I am quite satisfied with my V1 which is light enough to carry with me every day, unlike my D5100, which I gave to my daughter. So satisfied I bought a second V1, which has the adaptor and Nikon 70-300mm attached and is giving me some great wildlife photos. I waited and bought both at less than half the original price. Nikon overpriced the 1 series, but it is a wonderful little camera system. I hope Nikon will continue to improve it.

  • John Chandler

    seriously this is no surprise. I own nikon 1, only reason i got it was so i could take advantage of the crop sensor when i use a 200mm prime on it. but the camera lacks features, accessing the menu is plain dumb. I paid $200 for it, once the price was slashed but originally this was over $600 and for that much a sony rx100 delivers way more features and imo outperforms. simply put i think nikon failed with the mirrorless. Nikon recently made a statement they are revamping their strategy and acknowledge their failures, kudos to them for this. so i’m confident in the next couple years, nikon will take a serious attempt and lets all hope n pray they get it right. I enjoy using my nikon 1 but clearly i dont expect to sell prints from it, for easy shooting its okay, i’d rather use a nikon 1 than a cellphone. i love the fact i can use the FT1 adapter with a 50mm 1.4G, it certainly gives me some flexibility to be creative since i can use my nikon dslr lenses, whihcn was main reason why i got it. but i want to emphasize i only use it for play and not for getting paid but i wish it had so much more. i want peaking focus, filters and such, all those other features it has like slo mo video are quite frankly useless, it does have 60fps shooting which is nice in sports.

    • Nikonguy

      Well put. Having owned the V1 and trading it in for a V2 I use that a a second camera that takes advantage of my Nikon lenses.
      The V2 with the the 70-300 is a lightweight and very versatile combination.

      What Nikon did wrong with this series was to change the battery between the V1 and V2, continue with centre focus only using the FT1 and screw V1 owners on initial pricing.

      That sales are soft should not surprise anyone.

  • Spy Black

    What?! Nobody likes the Nikon 1? I don’t believe it. It’s such a great camera…

  • It’s a Shame

    I’d love to get a Nikon 1 as a second camera. In addition to being a back up, I see using it in places where dSLRs aren’t tolerated. But it costs too much. Add a little more and I can get another dSLR. It just doesn’t make sense for me.

  • lefantome

    So funny that Nikon blames Europe and America… I even don’t know why anyone would buy a Nikon 1 instead of a Sony RX100: poor ergonomics, appearance, size, performance, weird price… Nikon you should really think about it.

    • Of course we don’t know if Sony is making any money from their cameras, but yes, you are right. I have the RX1 and I love it.

      • BroncoBro

        I appreciate what you’re saying about the Sony RX1 and how *you* love it. But let’s face it, you’re comparing the Nikon 1 to a $2,800 fixed lens uber-enthusiast camera. Hardly a fair comparison to what Nikon was trying to do with the Nikon 1. At the price ranges that would qualify as “popular”, you have to sell A LOT of units to make a profit. One has to imagine that, for Sony, the RX1 is a bit like the Corvette for Chevrolet…a flagship that keeps Chevy at the “top of mind” for the consumer who will realistically go on to buy a Malibu.

        • lefantome

          Well then there is RX100 which is much more compact than the Nikon 1 and has much more functions. And the RX100 MkII.

  • Nate

    Nikon needs to take its cue from Fuji. Everyone is gobbling up the x series and leaving the A camera alone due to its terrible auto focus and soulless n and j series.

  • BroncoBro

    As I’ve commented before, who is buying this Nikon 1 and the over-priced lenses that are offered for it? Evidently not that many. The entire exercise has been interesting and a bit baffling. Taking a complex marketing problem and trying to take a slice of it to try to figure out an answer to my question, let me use this as an example: they are offering a 32
    mm f/1.2 with an equiv. film FL of 86mm. It’s $900. The option for DX users is the 50mm f/1.2 FF lens. It costs $725. Huh? First of all, how many buyers of the Nikon 1 system would even understand what an f/1.2 portrait lens would do for them (potentially). Even if they did, how many of that small subset would know how to actually use it for its intended purpose? My conclusion is that Nikon came out with this lens (and others in the set) in order to woo sophisticated buyers/users. But the sensor is too small to get that to happen. So, in the end, the system doesn’t appeal to enough people and this financial report is outlining the hard numbers that are basically saying “the Nikon 1 will have a very truncated life span”. Let’s face it, the DX sensor is the smallest size that any “serious” “photographer” is going to accept. If you want to build a camera that will draw buyers away from their cel phones, it needs to have the “goods”. And at this point in time the “goods” is a small camera with a DX sensor that has a crisp, reasonably fast zoom kit along the lines of say an 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6. I think the engineers could build something like that that was small and light and affordable. Then offer some nice primes and maybe a long zoom and you might have something that folks would buy. Having said all of this, I acknowledge that we’re in a VERY dynamic marketplace that is difficult to navigate when you’re a company the size of Nikon. My best wishes to them as they try to figure out their future.

  • Sahaja

    “The operating profit forecast was also cut to 65 billion yen from the previously projected 85 billion yen.”

    Well at least they are making a profit – several other camera companies aren’t

  • click

    Nikon 1 is a good camera, but it is too big with the lens. I would like a small compact camera that makes good photos if I dont want to carry my DSLR. So I brougt a P330.

  • aptinabad sensor

    the problem is not the size of the sensor but the choice of Aptina sensor that is not at the level of Sony sensor (signal to noise ratio). Who is Aptina????????????!!

  • Graham

    It’s no surprise, considering how everyone prefers the Fuji XP/XE/XM to the N1 ! If Nikon would release a mirrorless, full-frame, FF/FX body with interchangeable lenses, quickly before Sony revises the RX1, they would capture the entire market! Everybody is waiting for this moment before changing systems. Many prefer the Nikon colours to Fuji, for landscapes. *The first to jump will win!* We have the lenses already, though a lighter breed would be welcome (superb landscape 18 and 21 to match Zeiss, light zoom 24-105, something longer). Concentrate on your strengths, Nikon! The world is full of entry-level look-alikes: who cares? Why should another model improve your chances? FF Mirrorless!

    • BroncoBro

      Sorry, but what you’re talking about is small potatoes. Yes, they need to make the things you talk about. But, that isn’t what’s going to “capture the entire market!” because that simply ISN’T the “entire market”. Nikon has enjoyed decades of consumer camera sales and that is what has driven profits. The cameras you and I love are a small contributor to the bottom line of the company.

  • callmejimboman

    I very much like my Nikon V1 that I bought when first released. I still like it very much. I paid top dollar. Now it sells for about a quarter of what I paid.

    Nikon taught me a very expensive lesson. Never buy their cameras new.

    We know high-tech prices diminish quickly. But the V1 has to be a new record.

    Nikon taught me to wait a year or so and I’ll get a great deal. Or buy now and get my pants pulled down.

    This is fundamental marketing: Have some semblance of protection for early adopters, or kiss those early adopters goodbye. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

    • BroncoBro

      Pat, I am rooting for all of those things, too. But that isn’t what is going to save Nikon. They need products that sell in the millions, not 100 thousands. If you love your Nikon gear, you need to encourage them to continue to make money and that’s done at the consumer level. It takes MILLIONS of units sold to make the kind of money that will keep the company viable in the publicly traded sector.

  • Pat Mann

    Nikon has a huge user base of DX enthusiast owners with no upgrade path other than the big discontinuity of jumping to full frame. For someone with a good range of DX lenses, that means abandoning about $3,000 or more of lenses – you haven’t made any more for us to buy that make any sense on DX – and spending $2000 to go to a new camera that’s a 7000-series full frame or $3,500 or $6,000 for more appropriate choices that are more of an upgrade from their current DX, plus spending about $5,000 to replace the DX lenses with much larger and heavier FX equivalents. That’s $8,000 to $10,000 entry-level cost barrier to switching formats for an enthusiast DX user, and leaving them with a much bulker and heavier system.

    THINK ABOUT IT marketing people. We’re not going to do that, not many of us, anyway. When Fuji or somebody makes that compact 35-equivalent f/1.4 that DX needs, they’ll get the lens AND the camera and now they’ll get the opportunity to buy a fast 21mm-equivalent prime, and a 27mm-equivalent f/2. Nothing in the Nikon system at all for these slots on a DX body – the ancient monster Nikon 14 on DX rather than the Fuji 14? You’d have to be crazy. And soon a 56mm f/1.2 portrait lens. And a 12mm Zeiss f/2.8 AF. People will buy a Fuji camera to get to the lenses on a slow growth pattern, not switch to Nikon full frame and swap out their entire system. And they won’t spend $1900 for a 24mm Nikkor that weighs a pound and use it on DX just to get a fast 35-equivalent.

    Give DX users an upgrade path that lets them incrementally move up and stay with the system. That means a D400, and it means a 23mm f/1.4, and a 16mm or 18mm f/1.4 or f/2, and a 12mm f/2.8, and a 50-135 or so f/2.8 zoom. High spec lenses to match a high spec camera, with a DX sensor.

  • inyourbase

    Massive meh @ mirrorless.
    SLR for life, yo.

  • harry thevi

    Both Nikon & Canon should discontinue the mirrorless cameras, as the actual DSLR entry levels have become more affordable and feature rich. Nikon & Canon already have great, powerful point & shoot cameras which overshadow the mirrorless cameras in every way. No Professional or Enthusiast will buy a mirrorless camera. Both are wasting their efforts in creating a market for a new segment which no one is interested. Only a Rich Man can gift these mirrorless cameras to his 2nd or 3rd girlfriends.

  • Charlie

    My feeling is it is Samsung who is going to become a market leader in a few years. They are testing the market with cameras which have 3G internet connectivity – people want to post photos to Facebook/Twitter etc. whilst they are out and about. The days of waiting until you get home and then choosing your favourite photos from your computer and then uploading are numbered. Us people who read camera rumour sites are enthusiasts, we have a particular set of features (quality or performance) we want from camera. This news article isn’t about poor SLR sales, but poor mirrorless camera sales. Your average person on the street want a camera that takes good pictures (whilst important, they don’t care so much about the spec) and want to be able to upload to Facebook whilst they are out and about. I know Nikon have made a compact camera with wi-fi, but you still need a wi-fi connection so end up waiting until you’re home to upload anyway. I feel Samsung have shown part of the future with their Galaxy S4 Zoom phone/camera… You can talk as much as you like about how good or bad it is as a camera, but if it sells then it keeps the company in profit – and if the camera sells, more R&D will be invested in it to make it better.

  • Phantom

    Bring back the D700 or come out with its replacement .

  • Curious how 99% of the world’s airhead humans have suddenly become all holier than thou about their “non-racism”, embrace of diversity and the other chilling mental implants from the liberal atheist liars who control ABC, NBC, NPR and CBS.

    Meanwhile, their own children are bused each day to Satanic indoctrination centers (with parental approval), the neo-communist thugs who call themselves Democrats have the title to every piece of land in the country, every citizen is forced to pay just for the right to drive on the streets and fathers are told to call real men with guns and badges when it comes time for protecting their own families on public streets.

    But we sure ain’t racist, y’all. Yee haw!

  • Captain Megaton

    There is a world of difference between mirrorless cameras not being as popular as expected outside of Japan, and the Nikon 1 system cameras not being as popular as expected outside of Japan.

    If Westerners are really just picking up Nikon dSLRs instead of Nikon1, then Nikon doesn’t really have anything to worry about. If they are buying Fuji XE-1 instead, its more of a problem.

  • Anthony Papagallo

    The Nikon 1 was the first Nikon product I ever purchased where i felt like i had been screwed. Naively I imagined it might be a replacement for my elderly but oh so sublimely beautiful D40 walkaround-holiday camera.
    How wrong I was, its an unmitigated piece of crap and the people who designed it should be made to eat frosted pop tarts for the rest of their lives and banned from brushing their teeth.

  • Back to top