Nikon’s stock hit hard


After Nikon lowered their future full-year forecast, the company's stock plunged to its lowest level in 19 months:

"The Tokyo-based company plummeted 14 percent to 1,726 yen in Tokyo trading, the lowest close since January 2012. The stock has lost 32 percent this year, compared with a 33 percent gain for the broader Topix index."

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

    So shareholders are reading NR!

    • FDF

      Right, and they got tired of the complaints about no D400.

    • umeshrw

      No. Shareholders are reading Nikon future full-year forecast . It is also stated in the post.

  • texasjoe

    Hmmm. And I wonder how the Fuji & Sigma stock is doing…

    • badge2283

      Nikon will never make it on camera sales alone. They needed to diversify years ago.

      • thedude

        Your right.
        They have been poorly manage over the last decade.

        I left my Nikon F3,F4,F5 for Canons 1d series years ago. The DX format just didn’t cut it for me, and took them far to long to get a full camera to market, 5 or 6 years after Canon. That told me a lot about Nikon management their abilities.

      • They may be a little more diverse than you realize. But you’re basically right.

        • Thom Hogan

          78% camera and lens sales is not diversified.

          But remember, Nikon got to that partly because they lost lots of market share in another declining market, that of making semiconductor equipment. That’s actually one of the reasons why I’ve been so vocal on bringing up Nikon’s dilemma: I don’t want to see them repeat the mistakes they made with the Precision division, but it currently looks like they will.

          • Oh I agree it’s certainly not diverse enough. I was just pointing out that it’s more diverse than 100% pure cameras.

            Thinking back though, didn’t I read something about Nikon designing making the equipment to make a 72″ wide LCD production line? (well, I think it could make up to 72″ or divide that to do more than one screen at a time.) If I’m remembering that right, they have some tech that will be big in the near future. The first 4k screens have already hit the shelves (and some are surprisingly cheap!) When content is ready, I would think that making equipment like that would put them in a strong position to profit (at least for a while).

      • AM

        Yes, they need to start selling I AM t-shirts and wrist bands, just like the I-shoot-RAW dude.

    • fred

      Yes we should look at the others too including Canon.

    • Sahaja

      Fujifilm Holdings is up +62.53% over the year – it seems they are doing something right.

      • Thom Hogan

        Yes, making big gains in Information Systems and Document Solutions and a small loss in Imaging.

        • Sahaja

          Well at least it is only a small loss. Like everyone else, they probably got hit by P&S sales falling off a cliff – but at least they do have the financial resources to keep developing the X-System, which many people seem to like.

          • Thom Hogan

            Leica is probably the best in interacting with and listening to customers. Fujifilm seems to be not far behind.

            But there’s a tricky point here. It’s not just about listening to customers. As we used to say in Silicon Valley, customers are the worst designers in the world. You can’t listen just to complaints and requests, you have to actually go beyond that and understand what it is in the use task they’re attempting that’s triggering the complaint. Often “the fix” isn’t doing what the customer says, it’s solving the underlying problem differently and better. To do that, you have to be a user as well as a designer.

            To me, it seems that there are real photographers driving design at Leica, Fujifilm, Panasonic, and to some degree Olympus. At Nikon and Sony, the technology guys are running around showing off what they can do with transistors. I’m not sure how to characterize Canon any more ;~).

            • fjfjjj

              Canon is simply running a consumer electronics brand with aplomb. No photographic passion, no great new technology, just a steady churn of new models and smart global marketing/sales.

            • Nikon hasn’t made any 1.2 lenses in a while, while Canon’s 85/1.2 is the thing of legend (myth?). What about the 17mmTS? And Canon is actually pursuing the video angle, which Nikon seems to be appeasing more than actively working on.

              Products like the 1 series suggest that Nikon is equally out of touch with photographic passion.

            • Sahaja

              “Running around showing off what they can do with transistors” 🙂 That new Sony lens-camera thing proves your point in spades. I suppose it will sell to gadget geeks with a mental development age of 8-16 years.

            • Sahaja

              “Running around showing off what they can do with transistors” 🙂 That new Sony lens-camera thing proves your point in spades. I suppose it will sell to gadget geeks with a mental development age of 8-16 years.

    • Thom Hogan

      Sigma is privately owned. Fujifilm is a huge company where the cameras are currently 3.6% of their total revenue stream (source: Fujifilm 1Q financial statement). The group cameras are in (which includes film) was responsible for a 3.5% reduction in Fujifilm earnings in the quarter.

      To answer the other questions that’ll come up: Canon had similar issues as Nikon in their quarterly report, but again cameras aren’t their primary business, so their stock hasn’t been hit so hard. Sony, Panasonic, and Ricoh are all like Fujifilm: cameras are a very small percentage of their business. How the rest of the company is doing will have more impact on their stock price than what the camera groups are doing. Olympus continues to lose money in cameras at a significant rate, a big enough rate that they continue to have to find new sources of cash besides that thrown off by their successful medical business. It’s difficult to predict what will happen with Olympus stock, as they’re about to go through a huge dilution event to raise cash. It kind of depends upon what happens with the cash ;~).

      • 1000wordpics

        Futureshop here in Vancouver has stealthily pulled m4/3 cameras off the shelf this summer. They have one or two token products, but that’s it. Canon and Nikon display space as big as ever.

        • Thom Hogan

          This is as much about how the camera companies handle dealer relations as anything else. In my talks with dealers here in the US, they say Nikon is the best at this, Sony right behind, Canon slipping, and the rest out of touch with reality. But even “best” is a pain in the butt to the dealers with all the paperwork and hoops they have to jump through.

  • Daniel

    Am I considered a share holder if I bought a D3000?

    • Matthew Fleisher


    • Economist

      D3000 = antique share holding

    • neversink

      Just a consumer, whether you bought it for pleasure or for your business. They just need more consumers. If you buy one share, though, then you are a shareholder.

  • N.

    Let them announce the D400 and they will see something good

    • Brian

      Now that’s funny.

    • AM

      I don’t think so. The D400, if ever comes out, will be just a small market segment. Any smart investor would know that, a fanboy wouldn’t.

  • Renato S.

    it’s time to buy – maybe to wait a bit until it shows signs that it won’t get lower – and hope for better days! hahaha…

    • fjfjjj


  • BroncoBro

    The future for camera manufacturers is pretty murky. I’m assuming that readers of “Nikon Rumors” are exclusively camera and photography enthusiasts. Perhaps there’s a few gadget freaks following this site, but by and large it’s folks who are really into the camera and photo scene. We represent a small fraction of units sold by companies like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji etc. In order to survive, these companies need to sell MILLIONS of consumer-level cameras. Bringing out something like the mythic D400 (a camera I’m waiting for with great anticipation) will do little to improve things in the eyes of investors. There just aren’t enough unit sales projected for a camera of that type. Ditto for a serious mirrorless camera system. It costs A LOT of money to engineer, design and tool up a new camera. There’s got to be a return on all that effort or they won’t do it. Add to that the fact that the cameras that are currently in the hands of enthusiasts and pros are so good, there is less and less reason to trade up. Then there is the phone issue for consumers. As electronics advance, phones are becoming more capable and it is only a matter of time before there will be phones with zoom lenses that crank out digital files that will make decent 4 x 6 prints and exceptional electronic display images. So, sales of pocket cameras/point-n-shoots will slowly diminish (or perhaps quickly) and that will create tough choices for camera makers. The ability to develop and manufacture professional or enthusiast level cameras will be constrained. Unless Nikon can deliver on what their CEO recently hinted at, that being a consumer product that wasn’t necessarily just a camera, the company will contract. I predict that the price for the kind of gear we use will go up…perhaps quite a bit.

    • Michael Sloan

      I think Nikon needs to figure out what customers want; the’ve lost their ass trying to sell millions of units nobody wants. The new smart phone ARE the new point and shoots, and they are being sold by the millions and being taken everywhere by everyone. Gone to any concerts lately? If you have, did you notice the hundreds of cell phones snapping pictures or filming HD video? The same goes for amusement parks, beaches, and other public places. A couple of weeks ago, I was in the Mercedes museum in Stuttgart and I noticed teenagers walking along and snapping pictures of every single image with accompanying text hanging on the walls. They weren’t using DSLRs, or mirror less interchangeable lens systems, or point and shoot cameras. They were using their smart phones. I spent the whole day in that museum, and aside from myself and a friend who are avid photographers, I only noticed two other DSLRs and a Sony NEX. The smart phone is a new Swiss Army knife that both Nikon and Canon overlooked. Thom Hogan has said it best in that Nikon must create systems which create their own synergy by enabling people to best do what they want to do with their images, in the least obtrusive and most efficient means. If Nikon doesn’t react very soon, they may find themselves in even worse financial shape as they race to the bottom of the barrel to scrape at scraps. New innovative products that people want is what is needed; the iterative camera design isn’t cutting it anymore because there is little to no reason to upgrade. Naturally Pros and enthusiasts will purchase the low volume higher end gear at regular and predictable intervals, but your masses won’t! Nikon needs to do what Harley Davidson did; they need to create Nikon Owner’s Groups (aka photography clubs) to respark sales of new products everyone must have.

      • God I hate that crap at concerts. I’m barred from bringing my DSLR, but then I get some asshole with his arm in the air with a bright screen ruining the entirety of my favorite song? Fuck that. It’s so hard to refrain from slapping their phones across the venue. /rant

        • jr456

          It’s not annoying when they snap a picture but to sit there and record some awful video that nobody is going to want to watch…I just say “why??”.

      • jr456

        Excellent points. I mostly agree, however, Harley Davidson found most of it’s successes by no longer being a true motorcycle company but more of a lifestyle company. Their goal is not to crank out motorcycles in the thousands of units but to jack prices and actually sell less motorcycles that people will collect and cherish. They end up having a higher perceived value because they’re selling the idea that the buyer will be a part of American history in owning such a top-notch item in part with the actual motorcycle itself. Gibson guitars is another company that did exactly that. There are manufacturers doing better work than both of these two but they can never command the prices because they’re not selling the feeling or the dream with it and they can’t.

        Nikon unfortunately can’t do this..NOBODY wants old relic electronics as part of a lifestyle brand. Everyone is waiting for the next thing to break the mold and obliterate everything that was old. This is why partly why Apple was so successful.

        Nikon will have to find their own way and that’s going to be either by finding a way to embed themselves in the current smartphone trend or saying forget that and going only for the pro/enthusiast market which will mean higher prices and a small Nikon corporate entity(layoffs).

        • Thom Hogan

          I agree with the HD assessment. But I’m not so sure Nikon couldn’t pull off the same thing. The problem, of course, is to sell lifestyle you have to actually be in tune with the customer that has that disposable cash, and that’s where a Japanese led, Japanese based, Japanese style, Japanese centric company would have a tough time in the US and Europe.

          • MikeonNikon

            Subaru, however, seems to have succeeded as a lifestyle brand. A big difference is that Subaru has a clearly defined niche while Nikon has recently been trying to be all things to all people.

            • Thom Hogan

              Subaru seems to be going through the kind of soul-searching Nikon needed to do a couple of years ago. They’re selling so many cars lately (growth spurt) that they have to decide whether to go mainstream or not. Their CEO is seriously considering NOT going mainstream, as he believes it’ll change the character of the company.

            • neversink

              Thom — People need cars in this day and age all around the world. Everyone has a camera on their phone and nearly everyone I know is satisfied with their iPhone camera. Gone are the days when every doctor or lawyer would have a pro Nikon with a plethora of lenses.
              I see this phenomenon whether I am in NYC or Nairobi. even tourists are using their phone cameras much more. Fewer tourists have big DSLR’s strapped around their necks with a heavy bag full of accessories. no one wants to lug all that weight around anymore.
              in the last eight years here in Nairobi it is estimated that 500 new automobiles are put on the streets every single day. I would be fairly certain 500 DSLR’s aren’t sold in Nairobi in a year.
              That is a big problem for Nikon as they do not have other ele tropic products besides camera to fall back upon.

          • lefantome

            According to NIkon’s marketing abilities, I doubt whether Nikon is capable of doing that.

  • Marc Beckerman

    Nikon’s problem is that they don’t recognize the current state of the US and European economies. Their pricing of the D800 and D600 cameras is just too high. I would love to purchase either camera, but not at $3,000 and $2,000 (USD) respectively. I am an amateur, not a professional photographer. Get the prices down, and revenues will begin to improve.

    • Michael Sloan

      Buy an amateur camera then! You don’t need FX, the outgoing D7000 can be had cheap, used DSLRs can be had cheaper. I own a D4, but drive a Ford Focus and lust after a Corvette. Champagne tastes and a beer budget I guess…join the club.

      • Che

        I own a D4 and a D800E and I agree with everything you said….EXCEPT the Champagne thing. A cold stout beer trumps a fruity soft champagne for metrosexuals.

        • I own a Civic and agree with everything you said…EXCEPT the metrosexual thing. Stout seems to me to be a metrosexual style fashion statement (you can spot it even in a dark bar). Now scotch…ain’t nothing fashionable about that. AND it’s tasty!

          Maybe you really wanted to use “homosexual” as a stereotype, but decided that wasn’t PC. Even then, I’m not sure what it has to do with beverage choice. “Metro” just means you’re a fashion slave and primp and pose too much. It’s about appearance, not taste (in a literal sense, not a fashion sense). Champagne isn’t showy enough. Except for the bottle opening.

          But then, what do we photographers know about fashion, anyway? We just make pictures.

          • robert

            cause fashion is art.

            and btw, style and fashion are 2 different things.

      • Yes and no. If I’d bought a D7000 and didn’t know better, I’d just think that DSLRs sucked at focusing. I may have been easily lured away by another system. I know better and repeatedly sent it back until it was fixed.

        Although the replacement model (D7100) for the same price is quite good and redeems Nikon somewhat, the real solution should have included an apology for selling broken gear and being bad about fixing it.

        As a pro who knows, I have trouble recommending their lesser models anymore, because of the poor QC and repair service I’ve gotten. And I really want to recommend them. When it’s working, it’s the best gear around in my opinion. But the way they handle QC and repair in the US–ugh. Sometimes I wonder if they can do anything right anymore (ok, I really like my D7100 and it has given me hope…except that it’s not D400)

    • Dweeb

      Not to mention the D800E extra tax. Why not just make it $500 dollars?

    • Nikon’s problem is high price? D800 with best sensor ever (DxOMark) cost 2.600€, Canon 5DmkIII with good but not great sensor (21st position DxOMark) cost 3.000€. Who has high prices?
      Nikon has some problems, pricing is not one.
      If you want one problem, customer care. That is a big problem.

      • Amen! But as I said above, in a way, price is an issue. There’s no upgrade path for someone who needs what the D700 does, except a D4. And that’s $6000. So price is very much an issue. Nikon would be getting more of my money if they offered a D700 successor with a comparable frame rate and a modest resolution increase, and video. Instead I spent a third of that on a D7100, trying to hold out for something that better meets my needs.

        • moshy

          my D700 is near end of life and needed replacement… I’ve bought 2 used D3s’s in the last year instead of buying new so no money to Nikon from me… I even considered buying an additional D600 but the focus points turned me off.

          • neversink

            The D3s is a great camera. I sold mine, as it also had too many clicks… and I kept the D700 as a back up to the new D4 and D800. Both cameras I love, but the D4, is just so much sweeter to work with than the D3s.

    • Edwin Walker

      Just a few weeks ago, Newegg had the D800 on sale for under $2200, I was tempted, but the 15-20K for lenses part brought me to my senses.

      • Try with Tamron 28-75 (or a beater 28-70AFS) and an 80-200AFS.

        Or the new 28/1.8, old 35/2, 50/1.4 (either), 85/1.8 (either), and 180/2.8 for a fast prime kit.

        Any of this paired with a D800 is magic. These are all sharp workhorse lenses, that will shine on the D800 (pun intended), and come in way under your estimate.

    • Thom Hogan

      Let’s see, you want the price down at least US$1000, right? So in the case of the D800 they’d have to sell 50% more cameras just to have the same REVENUE stream. Unfortunately, that revenue stream would be unprofitable at that kind of price reduction. Nikon’s stated GPM is 37% at the moment, but the additional costs hidden in SG&A mean that their real GPM is likely in the 20’s. They don’t have a lot of pricing room to stay profitable.

      • robert

        WHat I like about you Thom is you say it like you see it. you dont sugar coat it. you are a hardcore nikon user but have no problem pointing at their eff ups. I respect that in a person.

        compared to some other pro photogs/reviewers who will only say wonderful things about them. god forbid someone says something bad about nikon.

        Marc, the F5 was selling for $3000 (which went down to $2k later on) when new so figure buying a D800E is pretty much the price it should be. but the D4 is overpriced IMO.

        if im not mistaken it seems the tables have turned with nikon and canon. a few years back it was canon that was very vocal with heavy marketing and nikon this special little company who was more quiet. today it seems the opposite with their ashton kutcher ads and the “I am nikon” slogan crap and those retarded videos they keep posting. I dont care for that. just give me the goods at reasonable prices and good QC. the crap QC should be left to the 3rd party companies not you nikon.

    • jr456

      Definitely not. This is not the way to go. As much as I’d love to see cheaper prices myself this is not a smart business move. The reason those prices are as cheap as they are now is because they’re subsidized in part by the cheapest of the cheap models.

      Beyond that, lowering the prices of your top tier only cheapens your brand and destroys your ability to have any kind of perceived value in the future.

    • Steven Wade

      No, you’re just American and want things for less money than they are worth.

    • Sahaja

      For what you get, it’s not so much the cost of the D600 and D800 that are excessive – but the cost of some of the lenses and accessories is.

      Those lenses are not going to last for decades like their manual lenses did – so lenses don’t represent the kind of “investment” they once did

    • Marc Beckerman

      Thank you for all of the great replies! After reading everything, the issues may possibly boil down as follows: The maximum price point for the masses appears to be around $800 – $1,200 USD. Beyond that, purchases of more expensive DSLR’s will be made almost exclusively by advanced amateurs and pros, only. When the Nikon D600 was announced, it was my understanding (right or wrong) that it was intended to be an FX camera for the masses (i.e., consumers). I really thought that its price point would be around $1,200 – $1,400 (including a kit lens of some type). When it retailed for approximately $2,000 USD, absent a kit lens, I knew Nikon would not have a big sales winner on its hands. Yes, it is a good camera; but no, most folks will simply not consider purchasing it due to its price. And recent history has borne this out.
      I do agree with the other posters that the Nikon D800 camera was not really intended for the masses. Personally, I would have purchased this camera at a $2,000 price point, but not at $3,000. For me, an amateur only, I simply cannot justify purchasing such an expensive advanced camera when my skill level does not come close to justifying the purchase. But here again, if the price were lower, I would have nevertheless gone ahead and far exceeded my limited capabilities by purchasing the D800 (actually the D800e). So price still makes a big difference for those of us possessing eyes much larger than our capabilities. The point is, some people, even those that probably shouldn’t, will stretch for ultimate quality if the price is low enough to allow for it.

      I still think that Nikon has overpriced their cameras and lenses for the current economy. Remember, this economy has been sluggish, and in some locations downright awful, since 2007. Moreover, given that Nikon has moved much of their manufacturing to low wage locations such as China and Thailand, I am not accepting some of the posters claims that their manufacturing costs do not allow for lesser pricing. That is just not accurate. Nikon has indeed achieved lower manufacturing costs by moving manufacture from Japan to Thailand/China. Not passing on the achieved savings to the consumer during poor economic times has, shockingly, adversely affected their stock price.

      Finally, Nikon needs to be more attentive to their quality control and customer service. Concerns over the focusing issues of the D800/e camera likely did not help sales. Early complaints about oil spots on the D600 sensors likely did not help sales. Customer complaints about Nikon not always honoring their warranties probably did not help sales. While these are probably issues more likely affecting advanced amateurs and professionals, word and reputation travels quickly. Overall poor customer service and satisfaction often has an adverse impact on sales.

      Finally, on a more subtle note, I never really understood Nikon bringing out both a D800 and a D800e. I understand that the D800e does not have an anti-aliasing filter thereby allegedly resulting in a sharper image. Well, for someone considering purchasing a very expensive camera, the decision to buy the regular very expensive camera or a sharp version of the regular very expensive camera is absolutely ridiculous. Both versions of the very expensive camera should be equally sharp and clear. The confusion that may have resulted from the introduction of these two models probably led to many folks simply not making, or being unable to make, a choice between the two. And when it is difficult to make a choice, oftentimes people will simply decide to buy nothing. That may have been what occurred with the D800/e models.
      Anyways, just some follow-up thoughts. Take care, everyone!

  • Bruce

    Canon doesn’t have this problem because they recognize they are a professional camera company, and are gearing their future towards image and media professionals of the future (photographers, videographers, and filmmakers). Nikon, on the other hand, used to be a professional camera company, but then they began creating $6500 flagship cameras that couldn’t focus properly, and they mostly ignored the videographer community. And, now, instead of embracing the future of image and media professionals, they are embracing the future of image and media amateurs and kids by investing in, what, this new Nikon phone thing? And new entry level DSLRs? More and more pros will switch to Canon for the future of professional photography, and Nikon will compete with Samsung, Nokia, HTC, etc., for some camera phone thingy.

    • Lcky


    • MarkG.

      let me laugh !!!

      Canon’s structure is more comparable to Sony than Nikon. They have a lot of divisions, and their digital imaging sector includes digital cameras, digital camcorders, digital cinema cameras, interchangeable lenses, inkjet printers, and calculators. That’s a lot more than just cameras and lenses like we find in Nikon’s case.

      in case you didn’t know, these are 2012 marketshare for DSLR

      Canon 28.6%
      Nikon 25%
      Olympus 14.3%
      Sony 13.3%
      Panasonic 11.3%

      • Thom Hogan

        I didn’t know. Where the heck did those numbers come from for DSLRs? Olympus and Panasonic don’t make DSLRs, after all.

    • Thom Hogan

      Canon has the same problem. Go back and look at their latest financials more carefully. While they had a smaller miss on DSLRs, they missed their target.

      And by the way, SL1 and EOS M are both attempts at entry-level with their existing sensor and feature sets.

    • lefantome

      Of course Canon does have similar problem but the point is Canon sensed it long ago and started to add rich video features to their DSLRs.

      But, what do you mean by “$6500 flagship cameras that couldn’t focus properly”? I don’t see anything wrong with the D4 well if I remember it right it was the Canon 1D3 that had serious AF issues under higher temperature. The problem isn’t with the D4, the problem is Nikon needs to really listen to the market, rethink about its marketing, and do something really bold and creative in the non-DSLR market (mirrorless, video camera, etc.) BEFORE it’s too late. Or maybe Nikon will survive luckily, but only as a niche player like Leica, offering limited products to limited customers.

  • Rodolfo Arechiga

    Hmm, maybe because they are not putting out the products that people actually want or need. A D400 would be nice! Thanks Nikon for being such great listeners to your clients! NOT!

    • groucher

      A digital Nikonos and gimmick-free digital FM are also needed. Wonder if Nikon ever do any market research.

      • Rodolfo Arechiga

        Nikonos was the standard of underwater photographers. imagine a Digital version? Wow! I am totally with you on a no frills and whistles Digital FM or a real rangefinder full frame.

        • Marco Santa Cruz

          While that would be awesome, underwater housings have improved so much, as well as the optics through which to shoot from, ie the lens housings… that a digital nikonos is unnecessary… moreover, a while a nikonos that took a swim might be salvaged, a digital version of it, is so much less likely to survive.. and therein lies your answer as to why we don’t have one.

      • Calibrator

        I sure hope they do – and don’t listen to rumor site forum posters!

        • umeshrw

          We all sure know they do their market research in wrong manner. Or do not read those either.

    • Thom Hogan

      No. Because for the last three years they had the accelerator to the floor and looked like a growth company, but in the last year investors have noticed that cameras aren’t a growth market and something had to give. Remember the headline I used a while back? Nikon financials “Defies gravity.”

      A D400 by itself wouldn’t change things, as I’ll describe in an upcoming article.

      • Rodolfo Arechiga

        Looking forward to the article.

      • Sahaja

        A D400 would also take away some sales from the D7100, D600 and D800 – so the net gain might only end up being 60% of the D400s they would sell.

        As you suggest, that wouldn’t change much – but it would help

        • umeshrw

          A D400 is like a D4. You buy it because you need it. People rarely would buy D400 if they can make do with 7100. Just like with D4. Infact I feel that D400 buyers would most probably get or keep 7100 as 2nd body.

        • Christoph Malin

          problem is there are not much sales of D600’s since months.

          • Sahaja

            They got hit by the oil on the sensor problem. Even if they have fixed it, the damage to the reputation of that camera is done. Hence we are now supposed to get a D610.

      • Poxypol

        I don’t know how to say this kindly, but I think nikon has been pissing alot of ppl off lately with decisions that seem suicide to me for a company that wants to gain market share. First off, how much would the cost of a 51 af system in the d600 would have been versus the crap they gave us? How many sales you think were lost just because of the ridiculously small cover area for an FX sensor (and the oil spot fiasco)? I sure would have baught it (even if I had to clean that oil) but not with this joke of an AF. That’s Nikon saying: “look, we could have made a great camera, but don’t feel like doing it” and that is customer offending. So guess what, no buy. Then instead of the d400, they say: “you know what, take this d7100 and just accept that we could have made it complete for maybe 10 bucks more (better buffer) but we just didn’t want to”. Guessing that might be offensive too? You guessed right! Now keep in mind I am a Nikon fan for some of the stuff they did in the past, but now it seems they are mocking their customers right in the face. Well, no more money from us then… Oh, and the Nikon 1 system? Another bad joke. They could have made the right DX lenses for the cost of developing that “thing”.

        • Thom Hogan

          You seem to think that Nikon’s troubles are DSLRs. Nope. As Nikon said at the financials, it was the Nikon 1 that caused them to miss their interchangeable lens forecast. Translation: DSLRs sold about what they expected.

          Meanwhile, compacts are tanking.

          I understand people not getting exactly what they want. I’ve been one to suggest that Nikon was missing a lot of small things on their DSLRs. Thing is, that’s where their only competition is Canon, and Canon’s not exactly doing much better with their user base in terms of adding those small things that would put a camera over the top.

          The irony is this: if Nikon DOES meet their forecasts for the year, they WILL gain market share.

          • Talking about misses in the Nikon DSLR line: Nikon D700s with the sensor from the D3s, D400. I personally wold like to see a D800 size body with the sensor form the D4. Those cameras should not have sucked a lot of r&d resources (maybe with the exception of the D400, since they have to add something new in that camera, maybe new AF system).

            • “like to see a D800 size body with the sensor form the D4”

              Don’t see how that helps their financials in their current state, though. You would be cannibalizing volume on the D800 for a hypothetical camera that would by virtue of marketing and pixel count need to sell at a lower ASP, and might even have high margins because of ramping up the D4 sensor volume on top of the lower ASP. I’m not sure if it would move many more DX shooters up into the higher margin FX space; if the D600 hasn’t done that by now, a sub D800 isn’t likely going to be a huge success either.

              We all wanted the “D700s”, but today, it would old marketing-wise comp to the 5DmIII. An updated D800s, based on the D800e with the next-gen processor to move the fps up and the ability to resample the RAW resolution before saving would be close to the “mini-D4” ideal.

            • Thom Hogan

              Exactly. A D700s, D400, D7100s, D4x, and any other high-end alternative you can imagine just splits out a lot of the same money to more models, I think. You get minor net positive for a lot of extra R&D work, additional manufacturing and inventory issues, additional training needs, and more marketing hassle.

              The thing most people are reacting to, however, is that the D600 is a consumer camera. Nikon essentially tried to say there’s consumer through pro demand on the FX side, and they think this actually decreases the number of “pro” (or at least prosumer) models. It doesn’t:

              PAST: D3s, D3x, D700
              CURRENT: D4, assumed D4x coming, D800

              The question is whether or not the D600 siphoned off possible D800 buyers or attracted new FX buyers. But then the question becomes, if the D600 attracted new FX buyers, did that siphon off from potential DX buyers. I believe the answers are: the D600 attracted fewer new buyers than Nikon thought, and yes, it siphoned off DX buyers. There’s some positive to that, as the D600 is a more expensive camera than the D7100, for example. But the net to the bottom line isn’t as impressive as it could have been.

            • I AM PERFECT ALREADY

              FPS. Just get a D800 + 24-70 and CROP. That all anyone could possible need.

            • If nobody needed FPS, Nikon wouldn’t be making a D4 at all.

            • Christoph Malin

              exactly. however, in the moment the D600 can’t compete against the 6D, except for dual SD slot and pop-up flash. and that is one of the problems they have in the moment. if they just wouldn’t have cannibalized the features of the D600 to much.

            • Well the big deal for the D400 is that, to be 8fps like it’s predecessor, they need a whole new, double speed processing pipeline. Nothing they make right now can chew through that many pixels per second. The competition does it, but at the cost of poor noise performance, and Nikon doesn’t want to give up that (small but noticeable) edge.

              And I think the buffer was an intentional decision from marketing, so they can have one more thing on paper to say that the D400 is a clear upgrade to both the D300 AND the D7100.

            • Christoph Malin

              Problem is that the D600’s sensor easily outperforms the D4’s, so a D800s with a D600 sensor would be awesome.

          • MK

            I think you all are missing the point… Nikon is not having an SLR sales problem. It did not understand that people don’t want a compromise between a point and shoot and an SLR. Especially when pro photographers are not recommending them. They suffer mainly in the AF department… Nikon did file a patent for an on sensor AF system; however, I do not want my sensor exposed all day long while I am in AF-C (most of the time). I get asked all the time what is a good camera. How do you answer that? An SLR takes a serious person… too much for a weekend shooter to learn. A point and shoot is cheap, and requires little learning. A mirrorless is smack in the middle… not a good place to be in a fragile economy. You can jazz up the sensor and specs all you want, at the end of the day, the AF system is point and shoot standards, the mount/sensor size do not allow the DOF of an SLR, etc. They are the small pickup between an SUV and a truck, and probably never should have been mass produced this early.

          • Poxypol

            I follow your sites regularly Thom, and really like your analytics and reviews. I think you are right but there are some more points here. Fujifilm is on the verge of doing the right camera with their x-trans line. The x100s is a hit (not for me but it is well designed, executed and targeted) and the next x-pro or x-e if it has a better af will most likely convince me and, I dare say allot of other people, to leave the Nikon (or Canon) DSLR camp. Why? It delivers almost FF IQ (next gen sensor should be even better) at a convinient resolution (yes Canikon, we don’t really need anything past 18Mp, we prefer clean iso with fewer pixels) and it is very portable system compared to a DSLR. In my mind there are only 3 gategories of camera clients to be adressed: 1. the “just wanna take pictures fast and easy without wrapping my head around camera settings” type which are allready served well by their smartphones and tablets and will not buy a P&S (let’s face it, it’s reality) 2. the group that owns or used to own a P&S in the past but got more serious and want to advance to a DSLR and are either looking for an improved version of what they have or want to move to next step (that is where I think a d400 with an integrated vertical grip and a 16-80 f/4 kit lens will do well) and 3. the serious shooters who need FX. Now in between those there’s place for 1 entry level DSLR, 1 advanced (D7100 like) and 1 PRO DX plus 3 FX. Aditionally, there’s also place for a compact system, but it will have to be really good and it needs to be priced right (aka not overpriced and with APS-C sensor). I think confusing buyers with too many models is very wrong for business as is cutting on features just to differentiate. You could be arguing that Canikon is doing well as is, but in my mind that can’t last, especially in the new economy where people are more carefull with what they buy and wheighing the decision more than they used to. My point would be buyers need clear targets: 1. entry level, no pro features, but high IQ (size also matters most here) 2. PRO-like (it is very important to give this kind of user the feel they have most of the PRO features) with same IQ but still at a decent price 3. Best IQ (aka FF) in 3 flavours. And everyone should get enough features so they don’t feel like they’ve just been milked for money. This scenario doesn’t take innovation into account, just the current line-up. And on the mirrorless front, that won’t sell well until everyone uses at least APS-C with AF systems to rival DSLRs and EVFs that don’t lag or look grainy in low-light (if not, at least get the prices down below DSLR levels, that will help a bit). To wrap things up, Fujifilm is ,I think, the only company right now doing the right stuff and I hope they give Canikon a wake-up call soon (a FF X-trans sensor and better AF is all they need). I’ve been using Nikon since my first P&S film camera with a fixed 28mm lens (those were good times), but the way things are evolving, I just can’t wait much longer for Nikon to make the camera I need and if someone else does it first I will switch. I had enough of waiting. The d400 is my last hope in them. D600 would have been the right one, if not for the mockery they did with the AF system. Oh, and if I were Nikon CEO, I would think twice before driving the company with the eyes closed to the market and customer input. Very sad.

            • Thom Hogan

              No doubt Fujifilm has good products in the X line. I’d quibble about your assessment that a 16mp APS Fujifilm is near a 24mp FX camera in image quality, though. Most often when I push someone making claims like that we actually get very rapidly to talking about JPEG performance, not actual sensor performance. Fujifilm has always had crowd pleasing JPEGs that makes the sensor look better than it is. Nikon has always pursued a much more neutral look, and tends to be light on the NR.

              I’m not sure Fujifilm is doing “the right stuff,” either. Watch the next X series camera release. I believe it is a mistake. They should be taking the X100s and X-E1/X-Pro1 up, not down.

          • I think Thom nailed a lot of it with his article on Nikon 1. This could have been a triumph instead of a fiasco. Sell the cameras at high-end compact prices (say $300 for a J1 kit), market them as DSLR quality in a compact camera at a compact price, and the higher end model should have proper controls and share accessories with DSLRs. But that ship has sailed.

            The next intelligent move is to sell a Nikon 1 lens mount that slides onto an iphone. But nikon is incapable of writing decent software so that won’t happen. We’ll probably get a Nikon android system camera with gingerbread on it instead priced at $1200.

            I wouldn’t be surprised to see a M43 mount that slides onto an iphone kickstarted.

          • nostatic

            Thom, if you have Nikon’s ear, please tell them to focus (pun intended). Between poor quality control, insignificant iterations, stupid niche products (Df, WTF?) and ignoring customer demand (new D300, D700 replacements, dammit!) they are rapidly alienating customers. I’ve seen companies commit business suicide many, many times, and Nikon is tightening the knot.

      • Thom, have you seen the latest Sony leak? I’ve always respected your opinion and analysis, but damn…you were right on the money. How soon until we see a full frame module with a lens mount, that our phone plugs into, to do all the processing?

  • sperdynamite

    All because of that piece of shit Nikon 1. Nice job, dumbasses.

    • Michael Sloan

      Although the Nikon 1 could have been better, it is still a good camera. The problem with it however, was its timing. I imagine the disaster in Japan severely screwed up its release dates, as Nikon had to shuffle lots of its capital around. Don’t forget the flooding in Asia either, as many smaller parts supply companies were out of commission for a while. Just imagine if it had made its way into the market before Android smart phones started hitting critical mass. The other issue was the release of several models in rapid succession, but that too was probably a result of backed up production pipelines. Big companies place orders to have millions of smaller parts manufactured many months prior to the cameras actually being assembled. Those contracts are binding and therefore must be paid. Nikon couldn’t afford to build the numerous versions of the Nikon 1, and they couldn’t afford not to. What is next, probably something like the Canon M is my bet, a Mirror less APS-C and also some kind of 1 inch sensor camera, similar to the Canon G12, but with a much bigger sensor.

      • Edwin Walker

        The Nikon 1 looks pretty good, but no viewfinder on the cheap one, and one that looks like it would break off on the expensive one.
        Canon has apparently come to grips with the poor sales of the “M” and is selling them at very low prices in hopes of getting people to buy-in to the system. I wonder if they break even on the deal. In any event, it is putting huge pressure on other makers who can’t afford to match the price.

        • jk

          Nikon one is not that bad a camera system but need a better sensor than the shitty one inch crap.
          hope they will try FX One system with the same fast PDAF on the sensor.

          • Tooki

            It’s 1 cm, not 1 in. If it were one inch it would be larger than APS-C.

    • Spy Black

      I don’t know about all of it, but the Nikon 1 was definitely a really bad decision.

      • robert

        It wasnt a bad decision, it was designed with compromise and they did a half ass job of putting in good things and missing other critical things.

        • fjfjjj

          I’m pretty sure that doing a “half ass job” on a completely new camera system counts as a “bad decision.”

    • AnotherView

      There’s nothing wrong with Nikon 1 system…it’s just over priced.

    • jr456

      The problem with the Nikon 1 is that the general consumer(probably nobody on this site) can’t tell it apart from the small point-n-shoots and the consumer would rather be holding up an iPhone fully unaware of the picture quality that the Nikon 1 line can provide. And those that may be aware probably don’t care.

      For the enthusiasts and pros…no need to busy this. I’d rather put $600 towards the next body or lens for my kit.

      Neat technology sure…but unmarketable as-is.

  • Dweeb

    And they want to hang Apple for lack of innovation.

  • Edwin Walker

    Sad News, times are tough and P&S sales are dropping like a rock. We will start seeing larger sensors in P&S, but I don’t think it will help.
    In Costco yesterday, they had a large Nikon DSLR display with all the consumer DSLR’s up thru the D600. That tells me Nikon is pushing stock at lowered prices. There was a separate very large display of J3 cameras as well. The P&S displays are shrinking and the DSLR displays now take up 75% of the space. Times are changing.

  • robert

    fuckers are way to greedy with their pricing.
    70-200 VR to VR2 $700 jump
    28-70 to 24-70 $500
    17-35 to 14-24 $600
    flash from sb800 $350 to sb910 $550
    85 1.4 AFD to AFS $600

    (I might not be 100% accurate here so dont nitpick but the price hike is still bullshit)

    and you can argue that the new lenses have new tech but like everything with new tech, old one goes out and new goes in. like smartphones. the new model gets sold for last models prices when it was introduced.

    fucking greed. the lenses are not that much better in performance. im glad to see their shares down. shitty QC.

    I hate canon and was always a loyal nikon buyer that if anyone said a bad word about them would want to kill but now, its only a tool and nothing more.

    the new mitros by phottix (will compete with the sb910 and have 2 year warrany for $300)will hurt their sales more and now the sigma 18-35 and next years 24-70 OS f/2.

    grips/flashes/lenses. many 3rd party companies are stealing their shares as well. greedy fucks.

    • Brian

      You forgot the $18000.00 800mm

      • robert

        and canon with their 200-400 at $12000. wtf are these people thinking there?

        with this shitty economy who the hell can afford these things.

        sigma got the right idea with their 18-35 at $700.

        I also dont believe DX is dead. they invested too much in it to not put out more cameras and lenses.

        I wouldnt mind the price rape SO (yes I would) much if they had great QC but Nikons denial and smug attitude pisses me off.

        WHat oil spots in the d600? and this is with lenses as well. GTFOHN!

        • Brian

          Let’s not forget the D800 left focus problem they never admitted to.

          • jk

            yeah but I think the D600 dust issue is more serious. I had to send it in for service every 4 weeks or so, and I got tired of it and sold it.
            my first D800 had the left AF point issue , but my current D800E never got any known issue at all.

            • Calibrator

              What’s even worse is that the D7000 had these spots, too, and they pulled the same sh*t with the D600.

      • Darkness

        How much SHOULD their 800 be then to preseve their stokcprice? ) The ignorants who populate this site defy reason. Isnt everyone is here SUPPOSED to be an gear enthusiast, seeking weak justifications to persuade theemselves to buy shit, ANY shit?

    • riotsheelds

      Not just Nikon, but all the camera companies are overpricing their new releases. They all raised their prices from 2009-2012 due to the strong yen, but now that the yen is back to 2008 levels none of them have dropped their prices back down. Add to the fact that their new products are made with cheaper labor (e.g. China) and use more plastics than ever, the quality control has not gotten better (e.g. D600 dust/oil issues) or they gimp on specs (e.g Canon), and some customer service departments (e.g, Nikon USA) have gotten worse, it’s no wonder less people want to drop thousands of dollars on the new gear.

      Time for companies to drop prices across the board, or raise quality and service to match the asking prices.

    • jr456

      How is that greedy? The 70-200 lens is a PRO LENS that will last a LONG LONG TIME. It is the industry standard telephoto zoom for pros. $2400 is a lot of money but it is THE lens.

      If they drop the price on that they may get some more enthusiasts and semi-pros picking up that lens but that’s a one-time jump those users will never make again.

      You have to understand that a bulk of their income conventionally has been through the crummy point-n-shoots and all the lower end DSLRs…with that market evaporating if they lower prices on the top-tier stuff they have zero income.

      • robert

        sorry bro. bullshit.

        the VR1 (which I own) sold for $1600 (the 80-200 AFS around $1450) when I bought it. why is the VR2 $800 more? what does it do better? it even has the same minimum focus distance as the VR1. they didnt change much in it. my photog partner has the VR2 and no noticeable difference between pics. I couldnt believe my eyes when I first saw them announce the price. I was certain it was a typo. they are sniffing too much of that nano coating powder there.

        youre talking nonsense. they jumped the prices to”adjust” for the yen and has since gone back to what it was before the jump. why havent they lowered the prices?

        whats the problem..lower prices, the gear becomes more affordable, people dont give their money to tamron/sigma/tokina and they have more sales..whats not to understand. sell little at high prices or lower 20% and sell more. I would buy used before buying new. not giving them that amount of money. fuck that.

        very simple. its a VERY shitty economy and more and more are going to third party MFR because they want f/2.8 zooms and good primes but dont have the money and these 3 deliver 85% of the IQ with less than half the price.

        If the performance is what the reviews are showing for the 18-35 (and later for the 24-70 f/2 OS) then nikon is going to hurt. it wont matter for me to sell my 17-55 AFS since I wont get more than $800-900 for mine, but those looking to buy new, and if it was me, id buy the sigma without a milliseconds hesitation. theyve stepped up their game. I played with the 35 f/1.4 (a videographer was using it in a wedding I photographed) and that shit is all quality!

        • jr456

          First off I’ve used both the VR1 and VR2 and I can clearly see a difference across the frame and especially in the corners. The VR2 is clearly better IMO. Whether that commands a $700 price increase is up for some debate I’ll agree but for a working pro making money this is a NO-BRAINER. There is to date NO third party lens that is as good as this…NONE.

          What you don’t understand is that the extra money made in selling more units at a cheaper price in NO WAY is the equivalent to the money they’re making by charging such a premium on a top tier product. When that equation becomes lopsided THEN and only then will they lower prices. This is marketing and sales 101. Lowering prices for top tier products rarely if ever works in situations like these. This isn’t Subway or Walmart. You lose your perceived value you lose everything.

          In addition to that, if you’re making a top tier product you should charge as much as you can get away’re a leader so IMO you deserve it. As much as I like Sigma and Tamron they’re hardly leaders in lenses…only recently have they stepped their game enough to come close to passing the quality and features of what Nikon offers.

          • robert

            perceived value? please. Im a pro. I didnt buy their VR2. I bought a mint 70-200VR. oh and using and owning both is 2 different things. I own the VR1 and my partner who I photograph weddings with has the VR2 and we tried each others many times. no noticeable difference. we only shot up to 5.6 at most and most times 2.8-4. im not shooting walls so it makes no difference if the corners are sharp. we are shooting people and usually isolating. so your comment is irrelevant. and the horrible focus breathing is a PITA. it is not worth $2400 bro. $1600 is the price it should be.

            that sigma and tamron 70-200 look very nice from the reviews though. build quality on the sigma is fantastic. my friend is considering trading in his VR2 he hates it so much.

            I actually dont like sigma/tokina/tamron. but they are delivering products that I have never seen before. and its obvious they are serious and want nikons sales. and doing a fantastic job. I salute them.

            oh and sorry to tell you but a seasoned photog does not make so much money. he earns a decent living but were talking the elite of the elite who make big bucks. and with the market flooded and many people not even getting married today its getting tougher.

            again youre talking nonsense. what perceived value does one feel he gets with these price jumps over the older gen lenses it replaced? I dont see it. theyre the only ones who perceive this.

            my friend has the 24-70 AFS and has the tight barrel issue which needs the zoom cam greased. before that he had the 28-70 and he curses himself for selling it. if anything with their crappy QC and shit CS my perceived value of their products and of them has gone down the drain. I couldnt give a flying fuck if they closed shop tomorrow.
            they are way too greedy.

            and everytime I come read the NIKONS STOCK HIT HARD I have a big grin on my face.

            • jr456

              Okay “bro”. I’m not defending the company but to charge 2400 for a flagship lens is not greedy but it’s marketing and their chance at securing their place as a leader through perceived value of a top tier product.

              No consumer has to agree with it but again, that’s marketing 101…you charge as much as you can for your top tier products unless it becomes more profitable in both the short and long term to go the other way and compete solely on price.

              I could go through many examples of why higher prices on top products mean more profit rather than less even though they’re selling less units overall.

            • robert

              what does it say at the top?

              Nikon stock hit hard. and thats part of the reason as well. high prices.

              sorry but when you charge 1300 for the 80-200AFS then 1600 for the 70-200VR then jump to the VR2 with $800, there is no proportion.

              the price jump is not because the product warrants the price because of quality. have no doubt that the VR2 is not an $80 better lens over the VR1. it was because they adjusted the yen because years it was strong and they didnt get what they wanted.

              the yen is back to what it was so they need to bring it back shows greed. the product on every level you look at it is not worth that money and from someone who uses it 3 times a week for wedding. it simply isnt worth $2400. no way in hell.

              here’s my friend bag. I have a more modest photo trekker aw, and we have another bag we use for off camera flash and mounting gear with other stuff. I use only the best gear available to use. the 70-200VR2 is not worth $2400 no way in hell. and neither is the 24-70AFS but the 14-24 IS AN ELITE LENS IN EVERY WAY!


            • lefantome

              Well that’s because of the high price of Nikon 1. Cutting off the prices of top-level products won’t do any good for the brand in the long term.

              As a customer I certainly like lower price for better gears. However, the price is not up to me to decide.

              IMHO Pros always buy gears just good enough to meet their requirements: no more, no less; and amateurs just buy them to follow the Pros. The Pros are the core targets for pro-level gears, and their demands are the rigid demands. So if you/I hesitate to buy a lens for, say a $300 price rise, the lens is not for you. In the world of professional photography gears, there is nothing like “price-performance ratio”: there’s only gears that can meet your requirements, or not.

            • robert

              high price for pro gear is fine. we will not argue that buying their best zooms is expensive and always was for the f/2.8 AFS zooms. not a single word.

              my point is the crazy price jumps. even when the 70-200 VR was selling for $1600 it wasnt cheap. my point is not the selling of gear at this price, which was in this range for years. between $1200-$1400 for the f/2.8 trio. my point is the outrageous difference between the old trio to the new trio. there is no proportion. and I wont argue that the new lenses are better to warrant the price hike because they clearly in every single way are not. NOT AT ALL. adding AFS to a lens is not a reason to bump the price $600 over the previous model. if anything, loosing the aperture ring should lower the price back. I like having the aperture ring option there.

              they adjusted for the yen but didnt readjust it back down again. thats the issue im having. theyre just greedy and said “shit, lets keep milking them, why lower the prices back down”

              I can understand adding another $100-150 but, shit $600+ price hike? thats crazy as hell. but its their loss. I didnt buy any of the new lenses and if I did, I would buy used. as long as I dont give nikon money in their hands. and I wont anymore. anything I buy will be used.
              ill buy off ebay. have it sent to a repair center for testing which will cost another $50 with shipping and just not give them a single cent anymore. they lost my loyalty and trust.

              im glad their stocks are down. fuck them for their greed.

            • umeshrw

              — I’m not defending the company but to charge 2400 for a flagship lens is not greedy but it’s marketing and their chance at securing their place as a leader through perceived value of a top tier product.—
              What happens when consumers get to understand such fleecing techniques of the company? More than that what do the customers do when when they know that the pricing of the lens is excessive only because of the PERCEIVED VALUE ( sorry for caps) and not because it is actually that good? Besides Nikon is not like leica or zeiss to brazenly be able to pull this kind of stunt. Anyways most of people who buy these lenses care about the quality and value for money aspect as they are pros.

            • jr456

              What happens? How many people feel fleeced by Harley Davidson and Gibson guitars? Those products are literally NO BETTER than their competing brands selling for much less. I’m only trying to make the point that you can’t blame a company for trying to charge as much as they can for their top tier product…that’s capitalism….especially when nobody is offering anything as good.

              Everyone can be bitter here but that’s what most companies would do if they had the chance; I’m really surprised here so many are blind to that and think Nikon owes them something.

            • umeshrw

              Again H/D and gibson guitars are like leica and zeiss. They charge for name. Nikon is not anything like it. It is not bitterness (at least not from me) that makes me write this. The main point I was trying to make here is that Nikon is surely free to do what they like. But then the enlightened customer has no need to be as loyal as before. This is mainly what Nikon is going to get from its hard core customers henceforth. It’s like –you reap what you sow. As for—especially when nobody is offering anything as good.—- that is rapidly changing.

            • saywhatuwill

              “Besides Nikon is not like leica or zeiss to brazenly be able to pull this kind of stunt.”
              Nikon has always had a reputation of being very expensive. In fact they were in the Guiness Book of World Records for the most expensive camera system in the world at one time. That’s why many people purchased Canon with their perceived less expensive camera system.
              As others have stated, you don’t need to buy their products of you don’t like their prices. I personally and probably blindly buy Nikon lenses because I purchased a Nikon to use Nikon lenses. If I wanted to buy the cheaper Sigma lenses then I would have purchased a DSLR from a cheaper manufacturer.
              Nikon, at least the D700 I own and the cameras before it, were built very well. My lenses are built very well. The accessories I have (other than the SB900) are built well and work perfectly. I have no problems with Nikon and think they’re worth the money.

            • umeshrw

              —If I wanted to buy the cheaper Sigma lenses then I would have purchased a DSLR from a cheaper manufacturer. —
              A body is not same as lenses. It has to be nikon or canon or whatever you like as it cannot be purchased on merit of image quality only. As for lenses if third party makers are at par with big brands at considerably less price then no problem. Personally I have all nikon lenses but sometimes for some of them and for future purchases I do wonder if third party lenses would be better as nikon hasn’t got anything much in my budget and quality requirements.
              You are right about other things. Even I would prefer it so if the value for money ratio is not too bad.
              —Nikon, at least the D700 I own and the cameras before it, were built very well.—
              That is true. All the problems there are are about current products. Hence all the cribbing.

      • sperdynamite

        While I generally agree with you that their lenses are over priced, however this overall thread is silly because Nikon is doing as projected with their DSLR and pro equipment. It’s really just the compacts and that stupid 1 system that’s dragging them down.

    • lefantome

      At least you can still buy the 17-35 and 85/1.4D and AF 80-400 brand new…Nikon didn’t force you buy the much more expensive alternatives, right?

      And some of the upgrades (e.g. the 80-400 and the 28-70/24-70) do bring significant improvements which are worth some price rise. The new ones are good, but if you want to control budget, the old ones work just fine.

      • robert

        bravo buddy. someone with reasoning and intelligence!
        yes, I have the option.

        I dont need these lenses, I own
        what I need or me and my friend have everything we need. I have the 85 f/1.4 AFD and 17-35.

        I would never buy the 80-400. significant improvements? compared to the price hike, no my friend. but yes some IQ improvement. but sheesh couldnt they add VR or improve the minimum focus on the 85 f/1.4 G? besides adding AFS there’s nothing there to warrant the money. people forget so quickly, the AFD was and still is a razor sharp lens. its no slouch. now new gear is out then the old one is crap and never existed? its one sharp mutha-effin lens.

        people are making it out to be the older 28-70 or 80-200AFS/70-200 VR are slouches. they are still very relevant and elite in EVERY WAY! Im even thinking of selling my VR1 to get the 80-200 because the VR makes me nauseous and I just love the way the 80-200AFS felt when I had it but not sure I can find one in the quality I want.

        but out of spite, I would never give my money to Nikon. I would buy used if I need to. everything including bodies/flash/lenses/grip. everything. their shit QC is something that drives me crazy. that smug attitude they have is pissing me off. no apologies either.

        I stopped buying their flashes. waiting for the phottix mitros to come out or get the 568II for nikon when yongnuo do that. I love my 568. better than my SB900 or 800. just the fact that I dont have to press a head release button when under stress to get a shot at a wedding was worth it. its something so small but so useful.

        • lefantome

          Well the 80-400 does have obvious improvements: AF–>AF-S, poor VR –> 4 stop VR, and better IQ even on my D3s.

          I feel the same sorry for Nikon’s service here in China, as they have been offering poor service attitude and trying everything to avoid doing anything for the customers. That’s really disastrous.

      • Sahaja

        Do they still make those lenses – or are they just stock that was manufactured quite some time ago?

        • lefantome

          At least not with the AF 85/1.4D: it has continued selling for years after the 85/1.4G release.

  • fjfjjj

    Nikon needs to seriously examine becoming a smaller company. They have their knowhow on the professional end of the spectrum, and that market is going to shrink. They can stick with their competencies and remain viable in the pro market, and even dominate it further (goodbye Hasselblad) on the way down to a sustainable size — or they can go chasing after Samsung and HTC and wind up like Polaroid and Kodak. It looks like they’re going to do the latter. It’s a shame, because the 36Mp notebook-thin big-grip full-frame electronic-viewfinder D5 is a camera that we all want to see transform the industry at this moment.

    10 year predictions:

    – Fujifilm acquires Mamiya/PhaseOne, and sells the dominant EVF camera system in 7 models with a system of 40 lenses in 3 formats

    – Canon sells 12 different APS-C EVF cameras, 2 models of DSLR, and 5 models of cine camera, and acquires either Panavision or Arri

    – Nikon is acquired by a consortium of Sony and Samsung, and produces one specialized high-end SLR (made by Fujifilm) and a dozen Android devices (Samsung with Sony sensor and Nikkor lens)

    – Hasselblad exits the camera business, acquires Luis Vuitton, and becomes the dominant European leather fashion brand

    • thedude

      Your Ten year predictions are bang on. Nikon will be a name plate only.

    • Some of these are silly…but that’s why I like them!

      Truly though, I don’t expect Fuji to last. m43 is eating them. They put out weird gear that weird folks love. (people who love XTrans are pathological or just don’t know better)

      Sony’s camera department is kinda a vanity project. They can loiter and just mess with the market forever. As long as they’re not losing major money, they’ll continue to put out weird shit that anybody could love, even in it’s imperfection. They make little mistakes and then improve on them over time. They have time.

      Canon has less time and budget to get it right than Sony, but more than Nikon. They comprehend how to do the high end thing, but the M says they don’t know what side their toast is buttered on for the consumer set. And they just hinted they may give up on that. Shame. I hope it’s a bluff.

      Nikon’s camera biz is too important for them. But they don’t have much in the way of innovative tech or IP that anybody would want to buy. And their brand in P&S cams is junk for anybody under 40. Nikkor only means something to pros and old folks. Unless they have some sensor tech or lens patents, ain’t nobody gon buy them that I can think of.

      • jk

        >the M says they don’t know what side their toast is buttered on for the consumer set. And they just hinted they may give up on that.

        actually the M system can possibly take FF sensor and maybe they can make a fullframe M.

        • Sahaja

          Did Canon invest very much in the M system? – It seems like one of their APS DSLRs with a new mount, but no mirror. Nikon seem to have invested a lot into the Nikon 1 system ~ including building a whole new plant in China to make them. If it fails, it could be costly.

        • Will the few lenses they make cover full frame? If not, then it doesn’t matter what the mount can handle. They’d still need to start from scratch in terms of making a system.

      • Sahaja

        You don’t expect Fuji to last? Their stock is up +62.53% over the past year.

      • fjfjjj

        Nikon has some exceptional IP in their sensors and image processors. Sony can’t touch the image quality that Nikon is able to extract from Sony’s own sensors, and no camera maker is producing low-noise characteristics comparable to Nikon’s results above ISO 400.

        • You know, I do wonder how much is sensor hardware, and how much is in the A/D and processing. Sony has a camera with the same 24mp sensor as the D7100, but it can boot out 10fps. Of course, the IQ is worse. I do wonder if the difference in both the speed and quality has to do with NR in the processing. The other thing that has me wondering about this is the difference I see when I compare the 1DX and D4. The raw files look similar, but the jpegs look better out of the D4. I do wonder how they sensors could be that different. Wouldn’t it be easier to tweak processing? /tangent

          Some IP, sure. But this type of IP only helps you keep an edge on the competition. It only earns you money if it sells cameras. It’s not something that anybody else is likely to want to license. And even less likely they’d want to license their secret sensor/processing sauce.

          Also: I definitely appreciate the edge the Nikon has in image quality at higher ISOs. I don’t know that everybody else does. And that too is something that effects sales.

          • fjfjjj

            A ton of the secret sauce is in the A/D and processing, as your examples show. Nikon will never license this IP, but the question was about whether Nikon has the IP to be an attractive target for acquisition.

      • Jorge

        You have no freakin’ idea how good Fuji is. None. I’d rather shoot with my X-E1, than my D800, or D700 ANYDAY ANY TIME ANY WHERE

        • The biggest problem (at least for me) with mirrorless camera is the lack fast tele-photo lenses. Of course you can use adapters, but it is not the same. DSLR cameras will rule that segment for a long time.

          • The Oly 75mm is stunning. And that puts you at 150mm equiv. That’s 99% of my tele needs right there. Do you regularly shoot anything longer/faster than 200mm/2.8?

        • Ha! Hehe. –BWAHAHAHAH! Heh heh. Huh.

          OH! –wait, were you serious?

        • triton majesic

          Are you for real? Well send me your d800 so I’ll have two. Man that thing shoots good video.

    • Sahaja

      “Nikon is acquired by a consortium of Sony and Samsung” – Maybe Samsung will buy out Sony. They could afford to – but I can’t see the Japanese letting that happen

      • Thom Hogan

        And there you have the problem. No outside interest is going to acquire any of the Japanese consumer electronics companies. We’ve already seen what ends the Japanese will go to in order to keep their semiconductor businesses Japanese.

        Mergers, if they happen, will be controlled by the Japanese banks, just the whole Olympus scandal cleanup and Sony investment was bank led. So if you want to know what will happen, look at the cross investment by banks.

        • fjfjjj

          You make a good point about keiretsu, or whatever form they take today. Samsung would not be in the mix with Sony. Who then? Panasonic, Sanyo, and Sharp? Sounds terrible.

          • Thom Hogan

            Sony and Olympus are now aligned via investment. Sony and Nikon have been aligned due to semiconductor equipment (Nikon makes it, Sony uses it).

            Technically, Panasonic, Sony, Canon, Ricoh, and Fujifilm are all large enough that they don’t need to be aligned with anyone. Nikon and Olympus are the oddballs, and for different reasons. Canon, Panasonic, and Sony could all be completely vertically integrated if they wanted to be. Heck, Canon can even make the semiconductor equipment for their fabs (and does).

            But these days most of the re-alignments are dictated by Japanese banks. So look at the big investor list for each company and look for common bank share holdings.

    • jr456

      You’re one of the few people on here that actually get it even if some of your post was tongue-in-cheek.

      The Hasselblad Stellar is an excellent example of where they are looking to go. They’re just testing and prodding this market a bit to see if there’s room for another trendy lifestyle-type camera.

    • lefantome

      That’s so miserable if Nikon turns into a niche player. And Hasselblad acquires LV? If you’re not kidding, please look at the scales of these two brands… And one more message the Canon Rumors says Canon is possibly planning to buy a medium format brand such as Hasselblad.

      • fjfjjj

        Obviously tiny Hasselblad will be able to acquire $70B LV through an LBO financed by its owner Ventizz Capital. The new company will be called LuisVictor, and the best part is that Hennessy VSOP will be rebranded the “V System.”

        • The V system will feature a new image stabilization technique: subject stabilization. Instead of sensor or lens based stabilization, the subject will be incapacitated with Henny. This new line will take superb images of passed out people sporting only the best LV accoutrements.

  • alvintoro

    Guess that pimp 18-140mm did not go so well with share holders either…


    Does this mean we might see some “lens only” rebates again this year?? Sure hope so..It was nice to take advantage of it earlier this year without having to buy a camera body with it…

  • TDL

    Too many mistakes in the past year or so, I’m not surprised they’re taking a hit with the stock. Maybe now they’ll start to rethink things (yeah right). I have always been a Nikon user, up until a month ago. Recently bought into Sony for the mirrorless aspect, and just sold my Nikon gear to switch to Canon. Liking the Canon, but still new enough to it that I’d switch back if Nikon gets their heads out of the sand. Maybe less kit zooms, better focusing bodies, and better QC would be a good start…

  • Kevin

    More budget dx lenses like the wonderful 35mm 1.8g is what nikon needs.

  • ashwins

    Nikon just wasted too much resources in 1 system. That was their biggest mistake.

    • jk

      agreed , the One is really lousy and none buys system cameras take it seriously.
      Nikon should have opted for FX mirrorless system instead.
      in fact , it is not too late , so go pro Mirrorless with the D800E sensor.

      • Sahaja

        Considering what they charge for the Nikon 1 – they’d probably try to charge something like D3x prices for a mirrorless FX. ;~)

  • De Mentia

    It is a great time to buy Nikon stock. The “emotion ruled” markets are over-reacting to an honest and frank statement from the company, something that is sorely lacking from most corporations. The fact is Nikon is still profitable and clearly looking for ways to firm up or gain market share.
    Why are most people who post on here negative? Because their glasses are always half empty. Sad but true.

    • Thom Hogan

      “There will always be a market for…photographic gear.”

      Yes, but how BIG of a market? We went through the same thing with film. Initial growth attracted lots of companies, but when growth turned to decline, we ended up with lots of unprofitable camera companies. Digital has been a repeat of the 60-90’s in film, only faster and with more players.

      You say it’s a good time to buy Nikon stock. Not if you believe what you wrote. If the “quality photo gear” market continues shrinking at anywhere near the current rate, Nikon will be a far smaller company in the future.

      I agree with those that say that Nikon has missed with a great deal of their recent gear (though they certainly connected on the D7100 and D800, maybe the D600). We do need a strong Nikon. The question is what mix of product is it that makes Nikon stronger without making it far smaller.

      • Sahaja

        In volume, is there is anything to replace cheaper P&S cameras which will virtually dissapear due to smartphones?

        • Tomsky

          Simply said: No.

          What the implications for the camera industry will be we’ll yet have to see. My bets are for consolidation, which means less manufacturers with a less diverse portfolio at higher prices, however I could be wrong.

          But usually smaller numbers of the same quality inevitably mean much, much higher prices. And a massive crunch in numbers is going to happen when the manufacturers will eventually lose the easy mass market sales (and profits) of cheap to middle-range P&S compacts and entry-level ILC systems (DLSR and MILC alike).

      • A. Lurker

        R&D costs crashing into technology’s declining ROI.

        If Nikon built an FX camera with limited functions (e.g. no video) and pushed it into a body that looked like an F2 with a plain prism, would you buy it? How much would you be willing to pay? How about a “real” run of SP2000s? How much?

        Mfgrs have nowhere to go but more “features” that require more R&D costs up front, and Nikon has few alternate product lines which can absorb losses in camera R&D. But going back to the future will only cannibalize sales of higher margin “modern” products. To do so would put Nikon on a product mix knife edge, much like Leica is now; trying to modernize a camera with perhaps too much pre-history to mess with. Perhaps “pro” cameras have reached a point of feature stasis with only ever-increasing pixel counts to offer going forward. Where does *any* camera company go to now? The other companies might be chuckling but they might be seeing their future in Nikon’s present. (Nikon-Still Leading. 🙂 ).

        • Thom Hogan

          I disagree. If you mean “as long as the camera makers pursue iterative updating there’s nowhere to go but add features,” then yes. But that’s not the only path that can be pursued. Basically, when the market commodifies or stalls, that’s the time to do something disruptive and different.

          I also disagree with the notion that it takes lots of R&D dollars to do something new or interesting or even iterate current cameras. It does if you’ve grown into a behemoth bureaucracy that uses consensus management. But frankly, that should be avoided ;~).

          When you look at the teams that are doing real disruption in video (GoPro, RED, BlackMagic), they’re actually relatively small and don’t require deep R&D budgets.

          When I was approached by VCs to start a DSLR camera company about ten years ago, the actual design costs were the small piece of the puzzle. The big costs were manufacturing and marketing. If you do contract manufacturing, you will be copied before you even ship these days. Moreover, to get efficiencies in manufacturing you need a lot of sales, which means you have to figure out how you’re going to market against all those established competitors. The reason we didn’t pull the strings on the idea was simple: it took too much money just to look much like how RED turned out (small quantities at high prices).

    • Jenny

      “Why are most people who post on here negative?”
      You could say it is like those Star Wars fanatics who hate no one more than George Lucas, the very creator of Star Wars.
      Fact is though that the stuff we want to buy from them does not exist, while our demands are perfectly reasonable (apart from those posts asking for an 800mm 2.8).
      If they (Nikon) have half a brain they can save a lot on market research by simply following the NR posts. The constant complaining about the lack of a D400 (for years now!) is one of the examples where they ignore their base.
      Unless of course it is always the same person who does the D400 posts, in which case they will sell only one once it hits the shelves 🙂
      Perhaps NR could set up a poll. What do we think is missing in the Nikon line-up, and let NR users vote for it to see how much demand there is (and send the results to Japan).
      For me a 400mm 5.6 with VR please, or a VR upgrade of the 300mm 4.0

      • patto01

        I doubt there’s only one person complaining about the lack of a D400 but does the NR readership represent an accurate cross section of Nikon’s customer base? I don’t know. It could be that if they listened to us — although I’m not sure which portion of “us” they’d listen to — it could be they’d only get a relative handful of sales for each new product.
        They’d probably sell a whole bunch of 300mm f/4’s with VR, but D400s? I don’t know…

        • Thom Hogan

          Correct. It’s all a balancing act. A successful D400 might sell what, 250k units the first year? But Nikon’s short 550k ILC units from their previous estimate. It’s not that a D400 would be unprofitable, it’s that a D400 would not tend to grow the base.

          The solution is not to delay a D400, it’s to find the fuel at the bottom of the line that keeps the ILC lineup growing. That said, basically Nikon needs to do both, and faster rather than the slower pace they’ve been at.

      • Thom Hogan

        These are not the cameras you’re looking for ;~)

      • neversink

        Forget the 800mm f2.8.
        I want a handholdable 13mm-800mm f/1.4 zoom. (I really would like it to be f/1.2, but I am willing to compromise!!!)

        • lefantome

          Well totally agree and it had better to be a pancake lens with 8-stop VR weighing no more than 300g~~~lol

      • lefantome

        Well forgive me but if Nikon decides to research the market by “simply following the NR posts” I’ll sell my Nikon gears immediately and shift brand 😛

        Nikon should listen to the NR comments, but here we are at least amateurs if not Pros, and we cannot represent the general consumer market.

        And your idea about the suggestion pool is quite good and well-meaning; I only fear that Nikon is too arrogant to listen as it used to do.

        And remember the DSLR market isn’t the point. The point is Nikon needs to find a new growth point for its future market share.

        • Thom Hogan

          Again, DSLRs are 60% of ALL of Nikon’s sales. Of everything, including huge steppers for semiconductor manufacturing, binoculars, and sunglasses. What Nikon SAID is that the low-end of the DSLR is where they need to be more active.

          Nikon needs to find growth to offset decline in compacts. They’re not going to find it in compacts. They’re not finding it mirrorless. That leaves DSLRs or something completely new.

          • I AM BROKEN

            Nikon need to look after their hombase first. Right now the DSLR range is a dog’s breakfast

    • lefantome

      As you mentioned, the market is “emotion ruled.” In the market if most people says it’s going to die, then it will die. Because no more people would buy it.


    Stock racing to the bottom…….
    Hope this triggers cull in the boardroom…..

    Nikon need execs who understand what their core business is about and it ain’t 1s and ‘pixes

    • neversink

      and don’t forget Polaroid… Another company whose stock went to zero.

    • Johno

      You nailed it….Apparently Nikon management needs to focus on what they did best. They will follow Kodak and Polaroid at this rate.

  • robert

    lower prices. better QC-apologize and announce “we can do better” to get publics trust back. better CS.
    keep pushing higher end DX cameras with better low light performance. stop with the bullshit crappy new lenses and childish lego sb300 flash. people dont want crap, people want quality at good prices.

    • lefantome

      Yep the SB300 makes me wonder what Nikon is thinking in their little brains. Don’t they feel concerned about the really useful wireless triggering features of the Canon 600EX-RT? If they cannot offer products with good quality at good prices, at least they should offer good products!

  • MIke

    The problem with Nikon and any other camera company, they have too many cameras on the market. For example I looked on, to see how many cameras that Nikon have produce in the last three years.

    2013 they produce 12- digital aim and shoot cameras, Two – mirrorless cameras and one -DSLR.

    2012 they Produce 13- digital aim and shoot cameras, two – mirrorless cameras and five- DSLRs.

    2011 they Produce 13- digital aim and shoot cameras, two – mirrorless cameras and no DSLR.

    You might say they are trying to keep up with their competitors. That is true. But if the market is flooded with digital cameras, the demand goes down when there are too many cameras on the market. Just remember in economics, it called supply and demand and you have to have a balance between two.

    My solution would be to find out where in market place, people are leaning towards for example: aim and shoot, mirrorless or DSLR cameras and zero in on that market. If the demand on one or two types of cameras are greater compare to the others. Then produce them first.

    Right now Nikon is rethinking their business plan when it comes to digital market.

  • Funduro

    Wow, the PR people at Nikon sure do know how to stick foot in mouth. Oh the marketing fools are doing the same thing. Can’t believe how stupid it was for them to sell the new D7100 with the worlds smallest image buffer. Or the 39 points of focus on the D600. They won’t release the D400 until Canon releases theire first. Stupid management still stuck by 20th century product marketing and ultra conservative in the box thinking. BTW I’m a Nikon customer, have been for over 20 years.

    • Sahaja

      I’ve been a Nikon customer for 45 years – some think they started to go downhill in 1979 with the introduction of the Nikon EM cameras and E series lenses which were aimed at consumers and had inferior build quality to everything they had made before that.

  • Frank Cava

    I think it’s Nikon’s (and the photo industry as a whole for that matter) pricing structure for their cameras and especially their DSLRs. With film SLRs, pricing was based on cost and, of course, supply and demand. However all has changed with the intro of DSLRs. Ever since they were introduced, DSLRs have had the “savings” of not paying for film, processing and other associated costs such as archiving factored into the cost of the product. Not to mention the ability and/or convenience of digital over film, especially in the pro market. I mean $3,000 for a D800 is just flat out ridiculous. If the D800 was a film camera, it would be selling for around $500. Take a look at Pentax’s 645D – It was $10,000 one day and then $7000 the next (thanks D800). Just like that, Pentax was able to cut $3,000 off the price. The entire range of Hasselblad cameras, lenses and accessories are a perfect example of this blatantly misguided pricing structure.

  • kok

    Give us one small size light weight camera with APS-C equivalent IQ and low light performance on still and Blackmagic equivalent IQ especially DR on video (this is highly achievable since Nikon has the best DR on most of their cameras as compare with competitors for years). Just don’t hide this here, hide that there….like Canon still does. That’s very annoying and hold people back from replacing their existing cameras.

  • David K

    Less expensive, lower performance cameras isn’t going to help Nikon. They will only cannibalize their existing higher end line. What there seems to be an insatiable demand for is sensor speed, megapixels, dynamic range and so forth. Therefore, maybe Nikon should explore a format larger than full frame; both in DSLR and mirrorless formats.

  • David G.

    Notice how the Y axis of the graph starts at 1500 and not at 0 ?
    Very misleading. See “How to lie with statistics”…

    • This is Bloomberg.

      • David G.

        I’m not blaming you, rest assured ! 🙂
        The fact that you read this comment and replied to it shows how much you care. I think you do a great job (…and I wish there were less parrots spamming “where’s my D400” on every post but that’s wishful thinking)

        • I will start deleting all “where is my D400” comments.

          • neversink

            Very funny. And I gave a thumbs up to deleting the “I want my D400” comments. But I say leave these comments. That way we easily know who the idiots are.

            • Smudger

              Oh well, a quality discussion couldn’t last back to normal…………

  • GJ Canave

    so hmmm should i buy nikon soon or should i wait ? will the prices go down ? or up ??? im thinking of getting my d600 soon with 70 200 2.8 and a 16-35 f4 so yeah ….

  • osiris majestic

    LACK OF Vr Primes, laughable nikon one system, failure to give a d700 version of the d3s, no update to the 24-70, just plain failure to give us what we want. Listen, I LOVE MY D800 almost as much as my first born son… but come on NIKON! I hope this places a foot in their asses so they’ll come out with something like a mirrorless f mount full frame system or a 35mm 2.0 vr 2.

  • Bence

    Are you wondering? I recently bought my second Nikon in a row and I had to claim back the money… Twice in 2 months… First I decided to buy a Nikon d7000 that was completely out of focus. The focus fine tuning was fairly enough to fix the focus of the kit lens, but was not enough to fix it on other lenses. Then I purchased a Nikon D600 for 1500€ and after 200 shots the sensor and the viewfinder got dirty… For this price I want quality product that has not to be servised during at least the first month…… Shame on Nikon.

  • nostatic

    I have to say that despite being a very loyal Nikon customer, my patience with the company has almost run out. Between poor quality introductions like the D7000 and D600, over-reaching cameras like the D800, and this latest dodo bird, the Df, I wonder what Nikon is thinking. Fail after fail.

  • Back to top