Two interviews with Nikon executives at the 2014 CP+ show

Nikon at 2014 CP+

Nikon-2014-CP+-interview Nikon-CP+-2014-interview
Imaging-resource and dpreview published their CP+ interviews with Nikon executives who successfully avoided answering any questions about future products/developments. Here is a brief recap of the main points from both interviews:

  • China represents the most important emerging market for Nikon.
  • In Japan and Asia the mirrorless market is still growing, but in Europe and the Americas it is shrinking. North America in particular is "one of the worst geographies when it comes to the mirrorless camera market".
  • Nikon now sees smartphones as an opportunity, not as a threat - they are now making cameras to be "always connected" to mobile devices (Wi-Fi) for picture sharing, etc. Few weeks ago Nikon was also seeing future growth in more advanced compact cameras.
  • In low light, DSLR cameras still offer the best focusing system.
  • Nikon believes that the amount the company loses to third-party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, etc.) is insignificant.
  • Nikon is very happy with the Df sales. The camera is supposedly still "back-ordered in some countries".
  • There was no answer on the direct question "Will you make a replacement for the D300S?"
  • Nikon 1 reads out all of the sensor pixels during video recording.
  • 4k video: " we still have a plan... Nikon 1 is very suited for this kind of usage" says Nikon.
This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Nikon D400 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Spy Black

    “North America in particular is “one of the worst geographies when it comes to the mirrorless camera market”.”

    Don’t tell that to Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung, Olympus, and I can’t remember a slew of other companies.

    Nikon is insanely in denial…

    • DuncanM

      3 seconds in Google would have shown you that statement is, in fact, correct. 12% global market share isn’t exactly winning any contests.

      • Spy Black

        That wasn’t my point. My point is that Nikon needs to develop a REAL mirrorless camera that is TRULY competitive. In spite of those numbers, you don’t see it stopping all the other manufacturers creating an entire universe of mirrorless cameras and selling it on a global market, now do you?

        • Andrew

          In think the issue with mirrorless cameras is not the technology but the form factor. For many Americans, there exists only two classes of cameras, D-SLR (the big camera) and compact point-and-shoot (the small camera). And they know that you pay more for a D-SLR camera and less for a compact sized camera. But there is a third class they are aware of if you will, the super zoom (though these cameras also have small sensor sizes).

          So for consumers, D-SLR are for serious photographers that want the best pictures because these cameras have those big lenses. In contrast, the consumers evaluate the value of the compact point-and-shoot cameras in their megapixel count.

          So of course the average American consumer is not aware that the Nikon 1 mirrorless camera has a special technology and larger sensor than the popular compact cameras. So higher ISO from larger sensors mean nothing to them. But also the fact that the Nikon 1’s design was not that sophisticated to warrant its pricing at a D-SLR level. But the new design might help some.

          I think in overseas markets, their consumers do more research before spending their money and as a result are better informed about product differentiation. Americans are just too wealthy to bother.

          • AM

            The Nikon 1 was set up to failure in the US the minute somebody at Nikon decided to use Ashton Kutcher for its marketing campaign.

            • David G.

              How does it matter ? If a company releases a strong product, are you going to decide against buying it because you don’t like the spokesperson they chose ?

            • AM

              The Nikon 1 is not a strong product, add Ashton Kutcher, and fall through.

            • neversink

              I think AM was joking… I thought his comment was funny…

            • David G.

              Right, I suck at detecting sarcasm 😛

            • mikeswitz

              Maybe the guy at Nikon who allowed the advertising company to hire Ashton Kucher should be fired

            • AM

              Agree. He and Tetsuro Goto.

            • Really? do explain.

              Might be terrible to use Wife beater Tiger Woods as a spokes person, or druggy cheat Lance Edward Armstrong as the face of your marketing, or Druggy Ben Johnson, and Chris Brown…….. oh the list….

            • ohnocanon

              I didn’t know that Tiger Woods beat on his ex wife..I bet that is a surprise to Tiger and his ex wife…There was zero talk about…Zenettii..Please show a link to that statement? Prove IT!

            • neversink

              You forgot tongue wagging, twerking Miley Cyrus!! She’d make a great spokesperson!!! Tiger Woods had an affair. He didn’t beat his ex-wife. Maybe there was good reason for him to have an affair.

            • AM

              If every Nikon 1 came with one of Miley’s twerkings, then we would be talking about mirrorless taking over DSLRs.

            • AM

              Lance Armstrong has done with one ball what you will never do with two.

            • ninpou_kobanashi

              Cheat, lie and steal? (^_^)

            • isail

              I thought it was Tiger who was (almost) beaten up by his ex 🙂

          • clifflwms

            There’s no reason to believe that Americans don’t research before buying; they just seem to prefer DSLR’s, there’s nothing wrong with that. Besides, the Mirrorless market is shrinking in Europe as well, not just in the Americas. So are we to assume that Europeans did “more research” than Americans, but came to the same conclusion (That they prefer DSLR’s)?

            • Andrew

              If an orchestra plays in America, the Americans will clap in the middle of the performance, the Germans will clap at the end, and the Japanese will simply bow in silence. I don’t know how true this is, but rest assured that different cultural traits exist.

            • mikeswitz

              And that clearly explains why the Swedes will make the D300 replacement.

            • neversink

              I’ve been to concerts around the world. I have seen Italians clap in the middle of a classical concert when they thought the finale had ended.
              But they were surprised. Mistakes happen. It doesn’t make it wrong. I’ve also been to enough concerts at Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center and other venues in the US and can assure you, your comment is way off base. Everyone screams and cheers at rock concerts all around the world. Everyone claps in the middle of operas all around the world. And the Japanese clap after concerts. Not sure what you point is…

            • Zesty

              He is implying that Americans are less refined and is perpetuating the stereotype.
              I am not sure if it is true and I have never been to Paris. I heard they don’t pick up their dog shit in the streets but I would not hold that against the country.

            • Jano

              Untrue. In Germany and Japan is not too common that people would clap between movements. But I have also played in Carnegie Hall in NY and Jordan Hall in Boston and the audience behaved the same way. The clapping sound is very different in the three countries though! 😉

            • Jano

              I mean it’s not too likely they will clap…

          • Photo-Jack

            I have to disagree with your opening statement.
            At least in Europe you can get a D7100 for half the price (body) of a Oly OM-D E M1 or the latest Panasonic top modell.
            And provided top lenses the Oly gives you a real good IQ. But going this avenue means to set up a whole new system. Thus the basic decision is, if one wants to replace a DSLR system for the sake of lighter and less bulky equipment or buy a small second camera for occaisional casual shots.

            The CP+ interviews clearly pointed out, that e.g. in Japan, where Nikon 1 has a considerable better market share than in the US, the primary customers are female and have a stronger interest in sharing their images in social networks.
            And of course sharing some pics of your gathering with friends or some Me-in-front-of are quite a different motive compared to maximize IQ. Thus for these group a Fuji X T1 would be too complicated, the Oly would be too expensive and too strenuous to figure which lens one need to buy to get the best results etc.
            But those who are really into the stuff, may want exactly that.

            • FredBear

              I think the reality of the situation going forward is what the East wants rather than the traditional western market. As the East becomes more affluent as the global economy shifts in that direction they will be the main target market for all manufacturers – not just cameras – as is already happening to a fairly large extent.

        • CSIROC

          Problem with that logic: none of those companies can compete in the DSLR market (as history proves), and the point and shoot market is disappearing fast. They HAVE to try something different or die.

        • DuncanM

          I don’t know, I have zero interest in mirrorless systems. I have even less interest in leaving my old lenses behind for new stuff that isn’t as good. I don’t want to compose my shots on and LCD or an EVF that will never accurately reproduce colors. There’s nothing a mirrorless can do that a DSLR can’t except be smaller in size (so what?), the same can’t be said of a compact system though.

          • Jon Ingram

            Don’t worry, Fx isn’t going anywhere… dx might be a different story though…

          • neversink

            I am no fan of EVF either… I find them inaccurate and a pain to use.

        • callibrator

          That WAS your point, you’re just in denial now and changed topic after DuncanM proved you wrong…

          • JakeB

            Yup, that’s what I thought after reading both comments. He may come back and tell us we have problem with comprehension…haha.

            • Spy Black

              No, I merely made my initial comment incorrectly. Bad grammar on my part.

          • Spy Black

            No, just poorly communicated on my part. My point is that Nikon is trying to downplay the importance of the North American market because they’re not doing well in it. The percentage of that market is ultimately unimportant. If that market is so bad, why would there be such a huge market from other manufacturers, of which Nikon itself is trying to sell products in it, products that aren’t doing well at all?

            To me, that’s the underlying reason why they made that comment. They’re not doing well because they have uncompetitive products. Perhaps saying they’re in denial was also a poor choice of words, I’m sure they realize how lousy they’re doing.

            • Thom Hogan

              Again, facts don’t back your assertion up. Nikon was neck and neck with Canon in DSLRs in the US until December, when Canon pulled ahead. Nikon is #2 in mirrorless in the US. Likewise, Nikon has been #1 or #2 in compacts in the US most of the year.

            • Spy Black

              If that is so, why is Nikon heavily discounting their J1 that they can’t apparently GIVE away, while all those other companies seem to have no problems maintaining the price on their mirrorless products?

            • Thom Hogan

              Simple answer, which I also answer in your next repetitive comment: Nikon overproduced to what the real demand was.

              Nikon seems to think they were going to sell over a million Nikon 1’s that first year. How much over, I don’t know. Reality was something more like 500k, and much of that was at discount. In short, they miscalculated what the market was really like. They weren’t the only ones.

              The problem with J1’s is that the J2 and J3 were already in the pipeline in anticipation of strong sales. Thus, there was still J1 inventory in the market when the J3 came out, which just makes them more difficult to sell.

              As for other companies “maintaining their prices,” that’s also not factually correct. Canon dropped their EOS M to US$300, and frankly it’s a better camera in most respects than a J1. Olympus has discounted ALL of the Pen line to absurdity. Panasonic discounts almost immediately after launch in the US. Recently we’ve been seeing NEX3 for J1 prices.

              I suspect you’re deep in the Internet Reality Distoriton field. You see all the hoopla over the E-M1 and X-T1 and A7/A7r and you assume that they’re big sellers. They are not. In the US they’re very low volume sellers. And, oh, did you not notice the current price of the E-M5? ;~)

            • Spy Black

              I’m not assuming anything, I’m simply looking at what Nikon is doing (or not) and how they’re commenting about it.

              Again, the EOS M is not a mirrorless. We’re talking mirrorless here. Except for big ticket items, most products, cameras or otherwise, get discounted after their initial launches, so you’re stretching things a bit here. Oddly enough, Nikon isn’t discounting exactly what they should be, the V2, which is the only camera in that series that has a decent design, barring it’s lack of hot shoe. But for it’s price there are certainly better cameras to had.

              Pricing has been Nikon’s biggest problem all along. If the J1 came out at $300-400, they probably would have sold well, now the cavalry has come over the hill too late.

            • Thom Hogan

              Let’s see, current price of a new E-PM2 is US$399, Sony NEX-3, US$299, Canon EOS M US$379, Nikon J1 two lens kit US$249-299. A lot of discounting going on at the low end, as all of these were US$700 or higher products at one point. Samsung and Panasonic basically pulled their low end out of the US. I don’t think I’m stretching things thin at all. If your expectation is that OM-D’s are flying out the door in the US, you’re incorrect. Olympus has been the fourth best selling brand in the US this past year, beat by even Samsung.

              And I’ll repeat, Sony is #1 in the US in actual mirrorless sales, Nikon #2, and #3 is a long way behind those two.

              The issue is relativity. Relative to what Nikon expected to sell, the numbers are low, sure. Relative to what others are selling, they’re doing fine in the US (and most other markets, with the exception of Japan).

              As I’ve tried to point out from the beginning, mirrorless needs a traction point and it hasn’t really found it outside of Japan, and even there it slipped in the past year.

              Consider this, how many Nikon D7100’s sell versus Fujifilm X-T1 or Olympus OM-D? Can those two latter cameras beat the D7100 in a shootout?

              While there’s plenty to grumble about in terms of Nikon, let’s stick to the spine. They’ve made products that the typical Nikon enthusiast doesn’t resonate with. Others have, though they haven’t actually attracted a lot of buying. If you were in Nikon’s shoes, would you put out an OM-D competitor tomorrow if your DSLR line was still vastly outselling it?

            • Spy Black

              I’m not sure how we can compare the D7100 to an XT-1 when the camera isn’t out yet. Although on paper it certainly appears as it will blow the D7100 out of the water, we’ll have to wait and see.

              If you’re going to compare the OM-D to the D7100, why don’t we them compare the V2 to, say, the Fuji X-Pro1? If you’re going to make comparisons, stick with like technologies (mind you, comparing the V2 to the X-Pro1 is actually a fairer comparison because they are are directly competing products, even though the Fuji is a superior product all around). How many D7100s sold compared to the Canon 7D? That would be more like it.

              We’ll see how the mirrorless market tracks going forward. You have to remember that that this is a relative new market competing with a very entrenched one. It’s actually competing against two markets, the DSLR market and the compact camera market. It’s maturing fairly rapidly however, and within the next year or two should be a far more viable player overall.

            • Thom Hogan

              > Although on paper it certainly appears as it will blow the D7100 out of the water, we’ll have to wait and see.

              Congratulations, this is how the Internet Reality Distortion Field gets started, and you’re now a proud father. Which piece of paper would that be, the Fujifilm press release, which stated the “fastest AF” was measured “based on CIPA guidelines using the X-T1 equipped with XF14mmF2.8 R lens.” Uh-huh. And they actually tested all other possible camera and lens combinations in the world to come up with their claim? I doubt it. Not difficult to focus a wide angle lens, either. And, of course, this was a single-servo focus with a focus aid set.

              This is part of the problem with the Nikon world right now. Nikon has pissed off enough loyal users that they WANT to believe any claim that comes from elsewhere so that they can justify their negativity towards Nikon. They don’t need that help. If Nikon isn’t making what they want, that’s all they need to say.

              I’d be happy to compare the V2 against the X-Pro1, as I own both. I’m selling my X-Pro1 and keeping my V2 ;~). The reason why I mentioned the OM-D is the same Internet Reality Distortion Field (IRDF) you’re enhancing: the E-M1 and X-T1 are mentioned time and again by people as going to blow Nikon DSLRs out of the water. The E-M1 is a fine camera, but my D7100 can outshoot it. The real question is do you need to outshoot an E-M1 (or V2). The same thing is true of the Sony A7 and A7r versus the Nikon D610 and D800, by the way, though in a somewhat different way. It seems we have IRDF’s all over the place these days.

              In 2013, mirrorless tracked BACKWARDS against DSLRs. That said, I’ve been consistent about this from the beginning: eventually, the mirror and it’s complexities as we know it will go away, even in the DSLR lines. It has to. The issue is going to become how do the camera companies drive costs out of the product. They will do that by reducing parts count, mechanical complexities, and substituting parts that can be manufactured on semiconductor lines (e.g. EVF instead of OVF).

              Neither Canon nor Nikon is going to make that jump until they have to, though. That’s because if they make their lines “mirrorless” it essentially endorses the mirrorless thing and cedes innovation to the competitors they want to keep at bay.

              As for mirrorless being a relatively new market, if you compare it to DSLRs, we should be at the same point in mirrorless as DSLRs were with the D70s/D200/D2hs era. Unfortunately, the growth curves don’t match ;~).

            • Spy Black

              Sorry Thom, but deducting a product’s potential does constitute being part of some “Internet Reality Distortion Field” as you like to paraphrase. Get over it. That is exactly why I said that we’ll have to wait and see. I look at a product’s listed specs and decide what I think the product’s potential is based on my knowledge. And yes, the XT-1 has the potential to blow the D7100 out of the water, sorry.

              “This is part of the problem with the Nikon world right now.”

              No Thom, I’m quite happy with my D600, with all it’s warts, and my D5100 as well. I merely see these products as they are, or if it’s a forthcoming product release, I look at their potential.

              “I’m selling my X-Pro1 and keeping my V2 ;~).”

              Different strokes, for sure. Not everyone loves X or Y product, that why you like the Nikon 1 and I don’t. 😉

              ” The reason why I mentioned the OM-D is the same Internet Reality Distortion Field (IRDF) you’re enhancing…”

              I’m not enhancing anything Thom, you are.

            • David

              Thom applying your logic Mcdonalds must be the greatest restaurant in the world , look at the numbers.
              By the time dear ol’ Nikon decides to join in and produce cameras that innovate for a change ,it may be too late. Fujifilm saw off Kodak, and it would not surprise me if Nikon met a similar fate.

            • Thom Hogan

              No. The analogous situation would be if the new Fuji Cafe, which isn’t open yet, announced they had the world’s best sandwich. If you can guess taste based upon a press release and some folk with conflict of interests…well, maybe I should just put out press releases.

              Moreover, innovation by itself is not necessarily enough. We’ve had plenty of tech innovations that have turned out to be dead ends, and we’ve had tech innovations that were clearly better but lost out in the market for other reasons.

              What I’m objecting to is all the folk who are judging before they’ve even had a chance to use a product. I’m not going to do that. I suggest that any sane person shouldn’t be doing that, either.

            • david

              Funny you should mention that as I rather enjoy the odd sandwich from Pret in the UK and turn a blind eye to fact that they are partly now owned by Mcdonalds, the world’s greatest purveyors of ???

              or as they call it food.

              If you cannot beat them, buy into the healthier option but keep it quiet kinda deal, seems to have worked out OK.

              I am not sure folk are prejudging without reason, they justifiably in my opinion, believe Fujfilm will deliver with the X system and are influenced by achievements to date. The X-T1 may not be the perfect camera , the holy grail, but at least it is a worthy effort that deserves credit, and for me is not born out of cynical marketing hype like the Df .

              Maybe Nikon will buy into one of the other brands to help them find their way in this brave new mirrorless world of innovation, which will not go away regardless of the doom merchants negativity..

            • Thom Hogan

              So let’s look at what makes the X-T1 get all the pre-release hype: focus speed, X-Trans sensor “magic”, retro style done right, weatherproofing.

              In the last six years, there have been fourteen claims of “fastest AF” that I know of. Of those, none actually focus faster or with more accuracy than my Nikon DSLRs in situations where the subject is moving. I’ll believe that the X-T1 is the fastest focusing APS camera when I’m able to test it and ascertain that.

              I’ve already written a great deal about the X-Trans sensor. It has pluses, for sure, but I’m not actually sure it’s better than a straight Bayer. Indeed, my comparison of the X-A1 (Bayer) and X-M1 (X-Trans) led me to comment that I’d rather have the Bayer version.

              Retro is a bit faddish. I don’t assign any value to the fad aspect; I only want a camera that doesn’t get in the way of my setting things quickly and accurately. Especially true if I’m going to use 8 fps and “fastest AF.” Fujifilm has mostly gotten this right, though they’re still scrambling to add some of the things that the DSLRs have had for awhile (tunable Auto ISO, for example).

              Weatherproofing is certainly welcome, but given that the lenses aren’t, doesn’t tend to make a huge difference in how I’d regard the camera. Frankly, non-weatherproof Nikon DSLRs do respectably well in light rain, mist, snow, etc., but generally it’s the lens that fails me first.

              > “A worthy effort that deserves credit”

              Again, my problem is that people are judging on marketing messages, not actual use of a product. I actually expect the X-T1 to be a worthy effort, but the question is how worthy when you stack products up feature-by-feature, performance-against-performance, dollar-for-dollar. We don’t know that yet.

            • David

              I basically agree with your a lot of argument but part company on the detail and your pessimistic outlook . Why do you think Fujifilm , or any other mirrorless brand, would produce a turkey knowing they are on a mission and must always try harder if they are to have any chance of success. It’s early days and there are bound to be teething problems. So what?

              Value? Compared to the Df ,it appears a bargain.

              Granted the Df is FX and all that, but at a VERY steep price taking the best lenses into account. The cost /benefit ratio in that case would not be Nikon’s favour, quite apart from other issues with the Df including a flawed access to the D4 sensor.
              I would not compare the X-T1 with any Nikon DX camera until a comprehensive DX lens set appears similar to the X system . That is unlikely to happen , so hanging around waiting for the mythical D400 is now pointless, except for a few specialist birders/ sports guys who might like to use such a body with long FX lenses.
              My interests lie elsewhere in fast dedicated glass ,and both Fujifilm and m4/3s deliver. the goods with plenty more to come.

              To me the X-T1 is neither retro nor faddish ,just your opinion , I would prefer the term classic . We have now come full circle with camera design and I seem to remember you thinking a digital FM /FE size /weight/functionality style body might be a good idea . Well apart from being DX ,which is fine by me given the X system’s infrastructure, the X-T1 is as near in concept and interpretation as makes no difference to the old FE/FM film workhorses but with many added niceties given the digital era, . I would not even care if it had no auto focus as the Leica M.
              If the fundamentals are right the rest is gravy, and I do not give a damn about lowest common denominator, accountant cost driven,intentionally crippled, cheapo plastic Nikon DX bodies and lenses.
              As an aside, I expect the D400 type camera, should it actually appear when Canon dictates its necessity, to cost more than the X-T1. Apart from that slight drawback, if price sensitive, we return yet again to the big stumbling block , where are the modern serious DX lenses?

              As for judging the X-T1 on marketing messages , i think you are totally off the pace on that one too. I have now read numerous hands on accounts , some by experienced photographers, who have given warts and all user accounts- try Nick Devlin at Luminous Landscape and video on CameraStore TV or Ralph’s Fotobude. There are plenty of others too , no doubt not up to your exacting standards but good enough for me to form a positive view. .

            • AdV

              The D400 or whatever it would be called is not only for birders/sports guys. There are enough serious amateurs would bought a D200/D300 and a set of DX lenses who cannot afford to go FX. A comparable body would be a D800 and it would require a new set of FX lenses. A D400 would cost about 1700-1800 euro, a D800+lenses would cost about 9000 euro or more. The D610 would be a bit cheaper but a D610 is nothing more than a D7100 with a bigger sensor. And the D7100 is 900 euro..

            • David

              i see your predicament, but maybe there are now better options/ solutions for your needs, other than those dating back to the D200/D300 era. Of course I respect you are wanting to keep costs down.

            • neversink

              You said it – Df is fad. “Real photography” Honestly, who really believes that hype. Oops, I guess hype works, given how many of these “retro” cameras Nikon sells. And who says Nikon’s marketing team is lost in the ozone?

            • David

              This is not really an accurate statement Thom. I do not believe anybody has been able to buy a X-T1 as they are brand new on the market and not fully available to purchase yet.
              What is all this shootout nonsense about , the Wild West , the OK Coral ? Most of the best photographs ever taken had no auto gizmos at all. Penn, Avedon, virtually anybody at Magnum, The list of great photographers is a very long one and not one of them needed a D7100 to achieve anything – its not the gear that matters but the photographer coupled with a visual intelligence.

              Give Elliot Erwitt either an OM-D or an X-T1 and I can guarantee he will produce a better image than you with a D7100, no contest, You may be able to out shoot him , as you like to claim with your D7100 but you will merely take more images, which may well be in focu,s but so what , -what do they say or convey?
              Robert Capa did not worry about being technically perfect – he really was in the firing line and knew all about real shootouts .

            • Thom Hogan

              I’m willing to take on anyone in a shooting contest. Almost none of you have even seen my commercial and best work. As I’ve pointed out many times, I don’t post it on my site because it simply gets stolen and reused and I don’t have the time and energy to keep up with that.

            • David

              Quite a statement , you truly believe your the equal of some of the greatest photographers that ever lived? Amazing , now I’ve heard it all!!!

            • David

              you are not ‘your’ the equal etc……

            • Thom Hogan

              I believe I’m a much better photographer than you think I am. Moreover, if you don’t believe in the value of your own work, then you shouldn’t be working.

              As for “equal,” that’s an entirely subjective thing in art. Every artist has their own unique vision, and one isn’t better than the other.

              Note that YOU came up with the word “equal.” I’m actually fairly careful about what I write and how I write it. I only said I’d be willing to take on anyone. I have confidence in my work. That’s all I wrote. I did not say I’d be “equal” or “beat” any other artist, I only said I’d take the chance and opportunity to go up against anyone.

              Would I go one-on-one in basketball against an NBA pro? Yes. Indeed, I had the opportunity to do that and he smoked me. But I also surprised him, as I don’t look like someone you need to guard ;~).

            • david

              I have not doubt you consider yourself an excellent technical journeyman photographer. I merely used the word equal because reading between the lines that appeared to me to come across as implicit . I apologise if I misjudged your true meaning.

              I totally disagree with your views on equality in art. Subjective is an irrational criteria unless well considered by an educated observer.
              It is also pompous and pretentious to equate photography with ‘art’ . It is another from of self expression given a sensitive practitioner , but ‘art ‘ is not really the correct word especially as it has now become a debased ‘catch all’ description for some highly dubious transitory rubbish.

              Photography, even more so now in the digital era, stands on its own merits and does not need to be compared ,likened to anything. An artist can also be a photographer, but the reverse is debatable.

              One artist can definitely be superior to another and likewise photographers. Picasso versus anybody you care to name for instance. Paul Strand or Andre Kertesz and plenty of others from the past are demonstrably superior to most photographers alive today.
              Meantime, dealing with the living, care to take on Don McCullin or Sebastiao Salgado?

            • neversink

              Off topic. I grew up in northern Manhattan and used to play basketball in the park and school courts. Karim Abdul Jabar, known as Lew Alcinder in those days, used to play on some of the same courts I did. He was a bit older than me at the time, and no one knew his destiny, but he always used to pick me on his team. I was younger and shorter, but i could steal the ball and run fast and had developed an accurate hook shot, to thwart the hands of the taller players guarding the basket.
              On topic: Don’t worry about what people say about your photography. I am my own worst (and best) critic when it comes to photos. I edit and edit and won’t show anything that doesn’t meet my standards, that doesn’t have impact and isn’t where I think it should be either technically or compositionally. There is so much mediocrity out there that one has to be hyper critical of one self.

            • david

              My comments re Thom are in the main tongue in cheek. I agree with much of his market analysis and commentary, but sometimes not the tone. His can be a little patronising and know all at times which sets him up as a target. His recently expressed views about ‘art’ in this thread being a prime example.
              Probably a cultural American /Brit conflict , we Limeys do not take ourselves too seriously.

              However you are right his style of photography, although unquestionably technically of a high standard, is not to my taste. No sin in that, each to his own.My admired photographers’ work transcends technique and is about something else entirely. A debate for another day !

            • neversink

              Thom – Post your work in small files.

            • Spy Black

              I’m not talking here about anything other than their comment concerning mirrorless sales. I haven’t said anything about DLSRs or compacts. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, if they’re doing so well, why do they have to heavily discount their mirrorless cameras that aren’t selling while other manufacturers are maintaining their prices?

            • Thom Hogan

              “Doing well” is a relative term. Nikon certainly thought they’d sell more Nikon 1’s than they did. So in that sense it isn’t doing well in the US. However, people seem to be caught up in the Internet Distortion Field these days: in the lousy US mirrorless market Nikon has done far less lousy than many of the brands that people keep raving about.

              At this point, everything is getting discounted very quickly. In some cases, heavily.

            • David

              World Press Photo Awards 2014 58% Canon users ,only 28% Nikon users. What’s going on their with mighty Nikon Thom?

            • Thom Hogan

              You’re asking the wrong person. Since I came to the correct conclusion almost 40 years, I do not enter contests nor do I accept awards. They are basically meaningless.

              Moreover, there’s potentially a statistical problem here. What if 80% of the entries were shot on Canon but only 58% won? ;~)


            • David

              What conclusion was that Thom? Let me guess , you are always right even when you might be wrong?

            • neversink

              What are you doing David. Going for a knockout punch against Thom. We get it. You don’t like Thom or his work, but this hissy fit of yours is entertaining. Thanks for the laughs.

            • David

              Just taking issue with the Guru, no hissy fit, glad you have a sense of humour, all a bit of fun really.

            • David

              Another typo , sorry – should read ‘there’ not their.

        • Hmmmm. I don’t think you truly understood your own point. In your first post you are saying there is a worth while market. And in this 2nd post you are saying Nikon need to make a worth while investment in R&D for that market. But Nikon and DuncanM above have a much better understanding about marketing, sales and statistic then you clearly do. If there is a dying market, you do not then go and spend millions in R&D for a product that won’t produce ROI. you have no idea what you are talking about, and what you suggest is way too risky for a digi cam company to step into right now due to falling profits and sales.

          • Spy Black

            If that is the case, why would Nikon GO OUT OF IT”S WAY to create AN ENTIRE MIRRORLESS SYSTEM of bodies, lenses, and accessories? Obviously they intend to be in it for the long run. They simply botched it.

            • blak

              Because USA! is the only market in the world! Woooo!

            • CSIROC

              How is a camera and lens company going out of its way to manufacture a camera and lens?? You do realize it took next to no effort for Nikon to throw its hat in the ring, right? Its like Google’s navigation system – already had the programmers, already had the maps, not exactly difficult to create a nav system. Same with Nikon…already has the engineering expertise, already has the manufacturing capabilities…not exactly a big leap for them to make a mirrorless camera.

              12% of the market isn’t enough for them to throw everything they have at it because they have a significant portion of the other 88% in the bag. The other manufacturers, again, are trying to survive. They have virtually none of that other 88% of the market, so they are desperately fighting for that remaining 12%.

              You seem to want it to be a more significant market than it really is.

            • Spy Black

              They went out of their way to develop a SYSTEM, not a “camera and lens”.

              Sure, they have the technology to do it, but as we’ve all seen, it takes more than technology to make a successful system, which the 1 series certainly has not been to date. So for them not “to throw everything they have at it because they have a significant portion of the other 88% in the bag” didn’t quite work out to well, now did it?

              And again, the reason for the statement is that they’re downplaying a market they went out of their way to get involved in, and haven’t been able to be competitive in. It has nothing to do with actual market figures.

            • CSIROC

              If Thom Hogan is to be believed, Nikon is #2 in terms of actual sales. So apparently a half-hearted effort that did NOT require them to go out of their way has indeed worked out just fine for the 12% market share.

              Again, mirrorless isn’t a motorcycle – its still a camera and lens. You act like they’re taking a 90 degree turn when really, they’re running in parallel.

            • Andrew

              Nikon has not botched anything. The mirrorless market is a promising segment. It allows Nikon to introduce interchangeable lens cameras that are smaller than DSLR cameras thus presenting an attractive option to consumers. In addition, as sensor technology gets progressively better, mirrorless cameras will produce even better quality pictures at higher ISO in the future. The popularity of these cameras in Japan shows that other countries like China will provide greater market opportunities to Nikon in the future.

    • ohnocanon

      This! It seems to me and others..that Nikon would Listen to their fan boys. I would not buy Nikon’s Mirrorless system..10mp over priced pile of shit. Why not make this Mirrorless Camera where it would take their old lenses…Save your Fan Boys some funds Nikon. Get it!

    • Photo-Jack

      You are damn right Spy Black.
      Though Nikon always stresses that they’d listen to their customers, they apparently don’t. Thus Nikon don’t understand the market!
      Especially Fuji, Oly and Panasonic offer high end products in the mirrorles segment. Nikon has desist from a good AF an inferrior Nikon 1 System and their way to interpret the discontinued Fuji 100 (Nikon A)
      Nikon’s problem is that they insist so seek their fortune in the consumer market.
      The dpreview interviews delivered an interestion statement according to which a high end camera in average results in purchasing 3,8 lenses while in the consumer segment it’ll be about 1.2 I assume that reflects on the other accessories as well.

      While Fuji provides a roadmap for their lenses and even for the next Firmware-updates, Nikon goes the opposite way: No statements about future products.

      While Panasonic and Fuji were fast to integrate the new UHS II standard into their products, no word from Nikon.

      It was also interesting to listen to the spokesman of Fuji being asked if a certain update wouldn’t cut into sales of another product. He said; That may well be, but we do it anyway, because we feel obliged to our customers.
      Nikon’s product philosophy goes right the opposite way.

      • Thom Hogan

        Those numbers come close to my figures. The CIPA numbers are 1.5 lenses per camera sold overall. However, a huge portion of those lenses are kit lenses and the customer never buys another. It’s the upgraders that are driving the lens economics. They often upgrade body-only, and they tend to buy new lenses when they do.

        Also, it depends a bit on how you look at the numbers. If the consumer is a one-and-done purchase, then they never achieve above a 1.25 lenses to camera ratio. On the other hand, the body-upgraders buy 3+ lenses, and they do that with some consistency (i.e., they end up with MORE than 3 lenses).

        What disturbs me most is that Nikon in DX went from catering to the latter (upgraders) to the former (new consumers), and at the expense of the former. If you examine their constant statements about China being weak at the moment but will recover, you see the fallacy of their logic. What they’re really chasing is new-to-DSLR users. As you might guess, that’s a declining game. There are not as many of those in the developed markets any more. But the emerging markets have always been seen as where the sales come from. So when China slowed down, guess what happens? ;~)

        Nikon has almost no choice but to come back around and cater to the existing user base eventually. There aren’t enough (and fast enough growing) developing markets to fill their needs long-term. The problem is that they’re in the middle of upsetting their existing user base no end. They might not find that they’re so loyal when they finally start paying more attention to them.

        • photdog

          Hi Thom,
          I partly agree
          and disagree with your statement in this thread.

          One doesn’t need to be internet distorted to observe, that Nikon shifted from “what
          technology can I put into a camera, to become world class” to “What
          is the least amount of technology that I need to implement to trump competing
          models, don’t cut sales on my other models and still achieve the price I
          want”. The focalpoint is not the customer anymore but just the bet of

          tradition is being a high end maker, proved by many cameras from the F3 HP to
          the D3s and now the D800E – sorry, the D4 was not the camera for me, so I
          can’t say much about it.)

          Fact is, that Nikon’s revenues are declining and Nikon is wining about it. (I probably
          would do the same)
          But the shame is, at least in my opinion, that Nikon doesn’t act on it appropriate.

          Nikon said that the development of the Df took several years, including a huge amount of
          experiences reaching back to the film era. How comes, that the Fuji T1 looks more thought through with their controls on the top plate? You yourself wrote about several oddities on the Df.

          A camera with a sensor predestined for low light messed up with an AF System that one can find in consumer cameras. A camera made and advertised for the use of older, meaning manual focus, lenses and then a screen, which is most likely made to accommodate the slow low price lenses that go with entry level cameras instead of microprism and split field. The latter not even available as accessory.
          A choice for lower than possible (even possible with things of the manufacturer’s shelve) here and there.

          And yes, we fortunately do have some internet sources that helps us, not being forced to
          learn only by own (costly!) experiences. The lately presented 28/1.8 with focus shift reported from at least two serious sources. The Df’s battery door falling off… Do I need to make every of these experiences myself before I may include them into my calculation? Sure there is
          a variance, not all of the D600s showed the oil/dust problem and not all of the D800s showed the left focus problems. But the more problems occur, the less relevant is, how distorted a particular problem may be. It forms the overall impression of a maker.

          Sure, personal perception plays a role, otherwise we hardly would choose different
          products. But probably all, who had to work for the money want to spent, trying to get the best exchange value considering the needs.

          But as we can’t simply add features, not even for a surcharge, we’d need to upgrade e.g. the entire body — only to find out that this is cut to size at another feature, due to Nikon’s philosophy.

          Besides consumer cameras, new products of Nikon have been a disappointing. People were
          interested in a resurrection of the Noct. What Nikon did, was giving them the focal length of the Noct but not the opening of f1.2! Even being gracious about the max. aperture, the whole thing was a fail; instead of going the way of the
          Otus from Zeiss, sharpness is lower or on par with the standard in the best case, to get a good bokeh for a bunch of wedding photographers.

          Lens-updates or new constructions, in the realm of pro level, are ignored forever. (The only fast 135mm is, to my knowledge, about 15 years old and stems from the film era)The wealth of patents without products means nothing to me! And while Canon users are begging for a 14-24, we Nikonians are waiting for a 17mm PC-E and a
          revised 24 PC-E (still no two axis movement, while even Samyang could do that for half
          of the Nikon price.)

          Let me add in this concern, that I see and accept the need for a business to make
          revenues. But on the other side, it is a fact that most customers do not have unlimited resource they can spend on gear. It is a simple necessity to spend one’s money wise. If a maker is talented, his pulse is close enough to the
          market to still make good money.

          But Nikon’s arrogant attitude: “Future Products are solely our internal business” is totally contra productive! Fuji issued a nice roadmap to enable customers to plan their needs and expenses. Given, Nikon -against all odds- would decide to bring out a D400, how many customers would then say “No thank you” we are going to get the D7200 or do have the D7100 already. Every salesman learns to sell the best suit first and then the shirt & tie. Nikon gambles and will loose. Especially loose trust and loyalty.

          Back to the mirrorless. An acquaintance of mine went for a Nikon V1, as a DSLR was too
          bulky in his consideration. As he was new to photography, I taught him a bit and he developed skills pretty fast. But that meant hitting the wall with his camera at any given corner. For exposure bracketing you gotta dive into the menu respectively do it manual. Using flash is so limited that one can forget it. etc. etc. Using the Nikon 1 system in my opinion is simply a pain in the ass. Due to it’s fast AF it has some few advantages in very limited areas.

          Due to the public perception of DSLRs, especially if equipped with fat lenses, I began to
          consider mirrorless, but could not make friends with an EVF. Thus the X-Pro1 raised my interest. But it soon dropped, seeing the OVF could of course not cope with the extension of the focal lengths offered. The introduction of the X-T1 made me curious. As it is still not available at my place (but is pretty similar to the X-E2) I tried the X-E2 and felt “home” immediately.

          Of course makers have to consider, that they have to offer something (the price of the X-E2 is higher than that of a D7100 and one have to invest into an entirely new system!) But if people still go that avenue, it is a statement in itself, aside what any internet sources may or may not say. If Nikon does not see a chance in such a product level, they should not complain a lack of loyalty. They really need to relearn, that success is not just a matter of the quarter’s numbers but
          is a long term thing, because most of us don’t buy cameras and lenses like food on a daily basis.

          In my
          opinion you can’t put all these things on just internet distortions. There is a philosophy behind it that can make Nikon fall one day.

          And frankly, even if it is honorable that you try to stay with facts, business is also a matter of psychology as you can observe at the stock markets. Observing the share of the grey telephotos at any given sports event makes a statement, no matter what the quality facts are. In the “Good old days” one needed to have a Nikon to be acceptable in the pro league, but now, with their priority on the consumer market, Nikon destroys this reputation. And once they
          have, it will be hard to recover!

          • David

            I recognize the frustration expressed in your lengthy post.
            Nikon have their agenda and it appears to be increasingly out of sync with their longer term customers requirements . Who knows where all this is going but Thom, who continues to imply Nikon will ultimately survive and win out whilst all others, bar Canon, will sink without trace.

    • Thom Hogan

      Nikon has the #2 market share in mirrorless in the US if you look at retail sales. Sony is #1. So Nikon would be happy to tell that to those other companies other than Sony ;~).

    • It’s not that we don’t want Mirrorless; it’s that we want our mirrorless system to be a real camera! Give me a DX sensor with an f-mount and an EVF, two control wheels, a grip, and a ton of buttons. And once those conditions are met, make the rest of it as small as possible.

      • Spy Black

        The Fuji XT-1 seems to be that camera.

        • AM

          Sadly, it doesn’t have F-mount.

          • david

            That is not the be all and end all is it? There is increasingly vigorous life outside the ‘F’ -mount bubble
            .Alas, waiting for Nikon to step up to the plate and deliver your ‘real’ camera could, for all the many points raised in this thread(see Thom), be a long time coming. How long are you prepared to wait?

        • The Sony A6000 actually looks pretty awesome, too.

          If Nikon wants mirrorless to take off in North America, they should make their mirrorless system a camera, not a fashion accessory.

      • The problem is that F-mount lenses are big and heavy. So you get your lightweight mirrorless camera and then throw it all away in lenses.

        I have a Nikon D4 with the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 and they are fantastic in terms of image quality, but in terms of size and weight they are a real burden. And unfortunately I don’t really like DX lenses – for the most part, they just feel like they are built cheap and crummy.

        So the Fuji line is a real revelation – the lenses are small and light but they look and feel like premium products. They are also a lot cheaper than FX glass.

        So as Spy says, the Fuji XT1 seems like a close equivalent to what you want, if you’re willing to go with the excellent Fuji lens system.

        • neversink

          Fuji is not that great in their telephoto lens selection, are they???

          • They have a 55-200 lens, which is pretty much a 70-300 equivalent in the full frame world. It’s a really nice lens that’s a pleasure to use.

            Unfortunately, autofocus, at least with my XE2, is flaky. I tried a firmware upgrade and two different samples of the lens, and both of them had the same autofocus issues. However, focus peaking and manual focus work quite well with the lens, so if you are not shooting rapidly moving objects it’s pretty good. Rumor has it that they have finally fixed the problems with the XT1, but I will have to wait until I take delivery to find out.

            Their road map includes a tighter telephoto zoom, so hopefully that will help. Since I use the 70-200 on the D4, the current Fuji lens lineup actually gives me more reach. (I don’t like the 70-300 Nikon lens nearly as much as the optically and mechanically superior 70-200 f/2.8).

            For my needs, then, the Fuji telephoto lineup is fine, but I can understand people’s yearning for a zoom going to 300 or 400mm or beyond. I would say Fuji is making excellent progress on its lenses, so I’m content to wait and see what they have in store for me.

            In the mean time, I can still use my Nikon gear. I’m not selling it any time soon, that’s for sure.


            • neversink

              Thanks.. Is Fuji’s 55-200 sharper than Nikon’s 70-300 (which i am not that impressed with.) In the past I always found Fuji lenses to be superior to Sigma and Tamron, etc. But am sorry to hear about the flaky auto focus though. And how would you compare theFuji 55-200 with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 which, as you say, is a stellar lens.

            • I can’t compare the 55-200 to the 70-300, because I don’t own that lens. I played with it. I really wanted to like it because it’s so much cheaper than the 70-200 and has a longer range, but I really hate lenses that are not smooth and graceful in operation. If my memory serves, I found it quite rough and unpleasant to use. Enough that instead of spending $600, I spent $2,100 on the 70-200 f/2.8 and never regretted it. (Fortunately, Nikon had a lens rebate on it so I didn’t have to pay $2,400, but I would have if I’d had to).

              The big advantage of the Fuji 55-200 is that it’s every bit as silky smooth as the 70-200, obviously much smaller and lighter, and it goes out to a 300mm equivalent.

              Other reviewers have been impressed by the sharpness. Honestly, I don’t think I come even close to exploiting the ultimate sharpness of a lens, because 99% of my photos are displayed on Facebook on low resolution computer screens. At the resolution of my Retina MacBook Pro, I don’t think the sharpness is quite as good as my 70-200. However, I also think that could be the fault of my own manual focus instead of the lens’s. Honestly, I haven’t gotten enough use out of the lens yet to give its optical quality a fair evaluation. I managed to misplace my XE2 and am picking up an interim XA1, which will be delivered today, with plans to get the XT1 when it’s introduced. If you express interest, I’ll fire off a few test shots for you this evening.

              Fuji fans are saying the XT1 fixes the problem with 55-200 focus, but I have noticed that Fuji fans really love their cameras and want to promote them, so I think we need to make our own fair tests.

              I will say that I personally get a lot of pleasure out of the Fuji system, mainly thanks to the very high level of overall quality. I am a bit of a junkie for a smooth, high-quality control feel, with a bit of solid metal under me, and in that respect Fuji is better than Nikon.

              However, nothing beats my Nikon D4 for super high ISO shots and action photography. If it weren’t for the fact that I’m getting older and my arm is getting weary holding up the D4, I wouldn’t be looking at a smaller system.

              Facts, however, are facts, so I have to cheer on Fuji. I have to admire them, with their laughable market share, trying to produce the planet’s best and coolest cameras. It’s quite an uphill battle, but I see themselves working hard and succeeding against a complacent industry. I really want to see them succeed, no question …


            • Update to previous post: I’m back from shooting and have some pictures taken with the XA1 and 55-200 lens up on Facebook.

              The first three were taken with the XA1’s 16-50mm kit lens. The remainder were taken with the 55-200.

              As I get used to the camera and focus system, I expect the quality of the photos to improve over time – I doubt that these are the best that can be done. On the other hand, the shot of the Bobcat is pretty cool :).


            • neversink

              Hard to tell anything about the image quality of your photos and the lens on a Facebook post, but that is one nice looking Bobcat. It looks like you caught that critter in a low-light situation. And you certainly live in a nice area of the world.

      • Spy Black

        Even with the 1-inch sensor, just put the controls in. They ALMOST got it right with the V2

    • Sky

      All of these companies loose sales as well. It’s not just Nikon that’s got it’s market share shrinking – it’s an entire mirrorless market as such.

  • DistrictGopher

    I know this wasn’t touched on here, but with more and more “experts” pontificating that DSLRs will be obsolete in the next decade… I say good. I’ll gladly buy up used pro lenses while people move onto whatever is next.
    However, the decline of the mirrorless in North America suggests that consumers here either go big (DSLR) or go convenient (p&s and phones).

    • nwcs

      Or the mirrorless makers are suffering from lack of distribution channels, shelf space, and marketing presence. That’ll change over time.

      • MyrddinWilt

        Mirorless suffers from a lack of lenses. There are no Nikon CX lenses that take advantage of the mirrorless format – i.e. large aperture short focus design wide angle.

        It is a better format for video than F-mount. If you are shooting handheld weight is everything.

        But there is still room for a DX or FX mirrorless. It looks like the first one is going to be a DX body aimed at the consumer. But that body could easily be the best video body in the Nikon range.

        The lack of CX short focus lenses suggests to me that the Nikon strategy for pro mirrorless is actually F-mount.

        They just came out with a stills only FX camera, how about a video optimized body?

        • nwcs

          With Fuji, anyway, the lack of lenses is quickly evaporating. They already have more options in APS size than Nikon with more variety. Micro 4/3 has basically a complete system. Nikon is seeing mirrorless as a hobby project, like the Apple TV for Apple.

          • Thom Hogan

            Let’s be clear: Fujifilm’s lens options pretty much end at 85mm equivalent at the moment. The current long telephoto zoom leaves a lot to be desired.

            Nikon has the opposite problem. In DX, 85mm equivalent and up is so well covered as to be insane. Below that, not so much.

            • AM

              Covered at FX prices. The DX user would have to pay premium for area that is not used.

            • So where’s your review of the 55-200 Fuji?

              I have it and I really like it a lot.

              Except that using the XE2, autofocus hunts like crazy and often doesn’t lock.

              If that’s what you’re talking about, I’m afraid I have to agree :(.

              I started using it mainly with manual focus and then it worked great. Of course that means it’s not well suited to any kind of action, but I do like the image quality and assembly quality.


            • Thom Hogan

              Working on it. But a lens that doesn’t focus reliably can be sharp or unsharp, it doesn’t really matter. It’s a big hunk of a lens, and getting good performance from it on the current cameras is a real test of the photographer.

            • david

              A firmware upgrade could probably sort this problem out.

            • neversink

              I have to disagree. I did all my “action” shots in photojournalism, editorial, sports etc on manual focus film cameras. The important part of getting the right image when using manual focus lenses besides having a good eye and great subject matter and understanding your equipment and medium is that the manual lens has a quick and smooth focus. DoF markings on the lenses were also a great help. I wish Nikon had never got rid of these DoF markings in their G lenses. Nikon made a lot of improvements in the G lens series, but this was one area they did not have to be cheap on. They could have left the markings there. DoF preview button is not the same thing.

            • David

              ‘at the moment’ yes but more coming down the pike as repeatedly outlined in the X system road map . Why do you consistently ignore this fact?

              It’s almost as though you wish the innovative companies to fail, such is your infatuation with the ‘ALMIGHTY’ Nikon.

            • Thom Hogan

              Given that we don’t know what lenses Nikon will introduce by the time Fujifilm ships those lenses, I don’t think we should give either credit for something they don’t have ;~).

            • david

              I doubt Nikon will ship anything in the DX fast lens world worth a candle, given their track record over the last 14 years.- and now, no road map. Whereas Fujifilm have created a whole APSC X system in about three years from nothing with a future lens road map. I know you like to make excuses for Nikon as to why they keep all info under wraps, but are they not pushing former loyalty to the limit?

              This then begs the question,’ which company in 2014 has more creditability with DX’? I know who I’d back to deliver, based on the last three years actual output, never mind interviews and the like.

            • Thom Hogan

              What you “know” about me seems to be a bit out of whack with reality.

              I’ve been hounding Nikon via my Web site for almost a decade to provide at least a basic Road Map of what they’re up to, and more recently, a lens Road Map that equals what everyone other than Canon is doing. So your “knowing you like to make excuses” is a bunch of nonsense. If you’re going to argue with me, try arguing with facts, not veiled insults that have no foundation.

              Which company has the most credibility with crop sensor (APS/DX)? Depends a bit on what you value, I suppose. Canon and Nikon have long established systems but significant holes in their wide angle and prime lineups. Fujifilm has a new system that has a good set of basic lenses but needs to quickly fill in the remaining blanks and offer more telephoto options. Sony looked like they were doing the same with NEX and suddenly the NEX lens spigot seems closed (which is one reason why, even with a Road Map, you have to weight what’s actually available more highly). Pentax seems to still be iterating old DSLRs slightly with not a lot of lens activity any more. Sony Alpha crop sensor is undergoing model collapse and also seems to have a closed lens spigot.

              The problem for Fujifilm is this: volume. They haven’t even sold a million interchangeable lens cameras yet. If the volume for them doesn’t continue to pick up and give them more market traction, I don’t think they can continue to extend the lens line much (the spigot off problem that Sony and Pentax have).

              Remember, the average number of lenses purchased per camera is 1.5. I’ll be liberal here and say that the average for Fujifilm is 3. Fujifilm currently lists 17 lenses (existing and Road Map). So, for a million units of cameras, that’s an average of 176k units per lens. That’s probably sustainable. But building out further isn’t if they aren’t selling 3 lenses per camera and if they aren’t selling more than 1 million cameras.

            • David

              My comments re ‘….making excuses’ was in response to your reaction to the Nikon suits interview over at DPReview , the origin of this whole thread. You were critical of DPReview and its line of questioning calling it low level. I also have no wish to veil insults.
              The Pentax K3 is not a ‘slight’ iteration as you misleadingly imply. Compared to Nikon’s recent boring iterations, its a substantial and well balanced upgrade. On your own site you headlined its arrival with the welcome’ Pentax makes the Nikon D400′ or words to that effect. Hypocrisy, or a dislike of Pentax/Ricoh?

              If the K3 had an F mount, it would have pleased many DX supporters and been hailed/revered as the second coming.

            • David

              Nikon has a dismal selection of dedicated fast DX glass,and therein lies the dissatisfaction among former users now seeking pastures new. Companies that had no alternative offerings when the D300 was new, now offer alternatives within certain, present but improving, limitations.
              Time was when a good photographer could forge a career with lenses between 18mm and 85mm without complaint, no problem. Fujifilm will offer a lot more options in due course.

            • Thom Hogan

              Perhaps you missed the gazillion “not enough (or right) DX lenses” articles on my sites over the past five years. I’m the first person to say that Nikon has messed this up (ditto Canon, though their crop sensor DSLRs tend to be less used by what we’d call enthusiasts or prosumers than Nikon’s).

              Existing Nikon customers are upset with what Nikon hasn’t done for them lately (quality control, missing models, missing lenses, missing features, etc.). They then look and see a crop of companies trying to elbow their way back into the interchangeable lens camera market (Fujifilm, Olympus, Sony). Thing is, when you’re outside the duopoly, you have no choice but to do a better job. So far that has racked up a whopping 3.7% market share for Olympus, less for Fujifilm.

              Unfortunately, I suspect that Canon and Nikon won’t actually decide to respond in kind until those market shares of the upstarts become meaningful. Until then, they’ll execute their current strategies, which have components like “move as many to full frame as possible” and “iterate the consumer DSLRs ad infinitum.”

            • david

              I have followed your articles over the years, as you know, but not always agreed with your sentiment and sometimes contradictory comments.
              The lack of market share by the pretenders is a reflection of the mass market ‘s conservatism combined with a lack of promotion /advertising spend compared to the big two. This in turn has led to a poor grasp of what viable alternatives exist in the space between the smartphone and the DSLR. This is unfortunate and without a massive ad campaign budget , unlikely given cash restraints, progress by the non N /C makers will no doubt continue to be sluggish in the short term. As perceptions change so hopefully will take up, forcing ,as you say, the duopoly to respond.

            • david

              A gazillion is a big number Thom and life would definitely be too short to wade through that lot, never mind losing the will to live en route.
              However, I do remember your oft repeated mantra regarding the’ lost in action’ missing DX lenses.

              Reminds me of a joke at George W Bush’s expense.
              Picture this:
              George’ W ‘is in the Oval office at his desk holding his phone to his ear, but held upside down speaking into the earpiece. Someone has just informed him that 3 Brazilian soldiers have crossed the border into IRAK( as he used to pronounce Iraq). His response is depicted as a shocked ” just how many is 3 brazillion”!

              Apologies to those that may have already heard it.

            • neversink

              1. Bad joke…
              2. You sound a little bit like our old friend robert

            • david

              Hello again, apologies for the’ poor’ joke just thought it might lighten things up a bit! Excuse my ignorance but who is ‘old friend Robert’?

            • neversink

              Just some argumentative guy who used to hang around here… Not important…. Poor joke on my part ;–} I’m always up for a good joke though….

      • Mansgame

        They lack in practicality right now too. EVF’s are not there yet. The benefits of a smaller body mean nothing if you can’t focus easily and see what’s going on- not to mention you still need a large lens for more serious work negating the smaller body.

    • buffet

      Yup, its classic marketing 101. Sell high or/and low, stuck in the middle products are losers.

    • John

      Thing is: I would and will gladly switch to mirrorless, as soon as the prices are right. Right now this is what I can get for 2200 Euros: d7100 body, Tokina 11-16/2.8 / Sigma 17-50/2.8 / Tamron Macro 70-200/2.8 – everything new. *That’s* the reason, why I haven’t switched yet.

      • Cyrille Berger

        And for 1400 euros, you get Nikon 1 V2, nikkor 10-30, nikkor 30-110mm and nikkor 6.7mm-13mm, all new. That give you an equivalent range of 18-300mm. Amd woth the remaining 800euros, you can either go on a trip or buy the f-mount adapter and a nikkor 70-300mm to get extra reach (up to about 900mm)

        • John

          You are of course aware, that you just proofed my point, right?

          Are you:
          – seriously comparing a tiny Point & Shoot 1″ sensor with APS-C?
          – and a V2 body with a d7100?

          But that is not even the point – the point is aperture. The system I exemplified has a near-professional-level performance: optically, image-quality-wise and as far as controls and AF are concerned. The aperture of your system is a joke. All your lenses have a variable aperture from ~3,5-5,6…. you know what that means in FF-terms?

          • Cyrille Berger

            Your original point was purely about price. Otherwise, I fully agree that there are technical diffrences to take into consideration.

            And personnally, i don’t see it in term of nikon 1 vs full frame, both systems have their strength and weekness, and I intend to use that to my advantage. I have a D600 and just bought a J3 for quiet cheap as a complement, as a camera I will always have with me, to put on a RC helicopter and to experiment with the extra reach.

            • neversink

              What extra reach??? You are fooling yourself!!!

            • Cyrille Berger

              Am I ? Maybe I am. And I would love to be corrected. But here is the reasoning:
              D600 -> 2.83 MP/cm²
              J3/V2 -> 12.23 MP/cm²
              D7100 -> 6.59 MP/cm²
              D800 -> 4.22 MP/cm²

              So with the same focal, assuming that you can frame the subject in the J3/V2 sensor, unless I am wrong, you should get a higher definition with J3/V2 than D7100 than D800 than D600. Of course, there might be issues with sensor noise, the lens not being able to provide the resolution…

            • neversink

              You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the sensor, except you would have hit it more squarely if you mentioned sensor size…
              Simply, the bigger the sensor, the more light will hit each individual photsite or photocell and the more information will be captured via a the larger sensor than a smaller sensor.
              So, with the bigger sensors you will see less noise, greater performance in darker, or low-light situations, much better dynamic range and of course this ultimately leads to better image quality and better pics. And of course larger sensors need more expensive and bigger lenses.
              It’s not a matter of simple mathematics and comparing megapixels to the area. You have the crop factor, but you are not going to have the same quality image at the end of the day.
              What do you think? Am i missing the mark somewhere? It’s not just about megapixels.

            • Cyrille Berger

              You are absolutely correct in saying that larger pixel will get more light, so of course, full frame sensors will outperform Nikon 1 sensors in term of noise (in fact, looking at dpreview and dxomark it seems to be about 2.5 stops), and a 300mm on full frame will give better results than a 100mm on nikon 1, but the point is that if you plug the 300mm on the nikon 1, you get an equivalent of 810mm, and if you want 810mm on full frame, you need something gigantic (and costly), and personally, I like to walk around and take picture, which means I aim for lightweight.

              In the end, it is possible that the pictures I would get with the J3 would have so low IQ compared to D600 that it will turn out to be a bad idea, but the only way to really know is to try.

              I am actually wondering about similar questions for telephoto lenses, on paper, the tamron 150-600mm or sigma 50-500mm reach further than say nikon 300mm f/4, but they have lower IQ, which makes me wonder if the extra reach is worth it or not. And unfortunately, it get too costly for me to try all of them (and I don’t of any lens rental service where I Iive).

  • Ernesto Quintero

    D7100 has a tiny buffer. Stupid Nikon executives.

    • mikeswitz

      They may be wrong, but I don’t think they are stupid. They are trying to look at the big picture from a different perspective than either you or I and that includes what is best for Nikon, not necessarily what is best for western customers.

    • It has to have been a deliberate decision. It’s not stupid — it’s no doubt a result of careful consideration, even if it may have been a poor decision.

      The Nikon DX bodies are far more coherent right now that the FX bodies — Good (D3x00), Better (D5x00), Best (D7x00). Steve Jobs would be proud. The fact that the D7x00 is missing features critical to pros seems to me to be a deliberate decision to force pros to buy the D4. The FX bodies on the other hand are a confusing mess. If I buy one body and I’m not in the market for the D4, do I buy the D610, the D800, the D800E, or the Df? This kind of confusion leads to lost sales.

      • Ceasar Sharper

        Well I feel the DX line needs a D400. I saw a pro NFL photog who had a D300 as his second body with a 70-200 on hi shoulder. So, what is the replacement for a D300S?

        • Mike D

          I agree that Nikon needs a D400. I did notice that at the last US Open of Surfing in Huntington Beach CA, 3 photogs were using 4K Red cameras. Red is introducing a 6K. Basically, you shoot video and then select the peak action still photo. For sports, it doesn’t get any better than that but it is still very expensive.

        • If Nikon thought it would make more money by releasing a “D400” it would. It doesn’t so it hasn’t. It may be wrong, but it’s in good company. Where’s the 7D mk II? (You may complain that unlike Nikon, Canon releases firmware updates that don’t suck, but that’s another argument.)

          BTW: you need to understand that “make more money” is a complicated question. There’s the question of what could a D400 design team do if it weren’t working on the D400? What would it do to Nikon’s inventory problems (which are legion)?

          Argue in circles all you like. Nikon has made a decision and you don’t like it.

          • Ceasar Sharper

            Now that Canon has released the rumored 7D we will see what Nikon does to compete in the price point.

      • Mike

        I disagree. The DX line up is all 24mp. It’s the features of the bodies that decide at which price point interests you. The FX line is all over the map. 24mp in a consumer body. 36 in a pro-light body. 16mp in ultra pro body and in a consumer/alternate body. Want 16 in pro-light? Nope. Want 36 in ultra pro body? Nope. Want 24 in pro-light? Nope. Depending on the sensor you want or the price you want to spend, you have a moving target of choices.

        • In what way do you disagree with me? DX makes sense, FX is nuts.

        • DuncanM

          If you look at the FX a little differently it makes more sense. D610 is a well balanced pro-sumer entry. Excellent resolving power, good low light, but lacking some control features. D800 has all the pro features and huge resolving power in a light body, perfect for studio and landscape where you need that kind of pixel power and lighting is more controllable. D4 has every feature a pro needs for any situation, unparralelled low light due to bucket sized pixels, maybe at the expense of not such a high resolution. The flagships are designed more for targeted use, not just good-better-best. Its impractical to think they can make a flagship model for every individual.

          • neversink

            I agree about FX being great, but the rest of your statement is completely bogus.
            First, Please don’t use the “word” prosumer. It means absolutely nothing outside of marketing lingo. Amateur or consumer are better words.
            Secondly and for the 10,000th time on this website: You can shoot anything with the D800. it is not limited to studio “where lighting is more controllable.” I use the D800 for everything: Sports, Wildlife, Documentary, Industrial, Editorial work and more. Please – Enough of this crap about the D800 being designed for studio and landscape. It’s bunk. Just as much bunk as the D4 wasn’t designed for landscape. Guess what: It’s a great landscape camera as well as good for all sorts of photography.

            • DuncanM

              You can shoot anything with a D7100 too, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed with a more focused user base in mind. The same is true for the flagship models, you can see by their feature sets what segment they are geared toward. Secondly, don’t presume to tell me what I can and can’t say in my posts. You may find the weather is a little cold up there on your high horse.

            • neversink

              I’m not on a high horse, but rather believe those who say the D800 was designed for only shooting studio and landscapes are completely misguided. I certainly did not mean to come off as being on a high horse. You can certainly shoot the same images on a DX camera as well. And I don’t believe the d800 was truly designed for the studio and landscape photographers only. And I just scratch my head every time someone says that because obviously they haven’t really used a D800. Anyway, I am living in Kenya, so it’s actually quite warm up on my high horse… ;–]

            • DuncanM

              If I had a D800 I wouldn’t limit its use to just the studio, or anything for that matter. I would shoot everything with it in fact. Since I do mostly studio and portraiture though my next body will be something with a higher resolution than my current D700. D4s might be an option if the sensor is 24 mpx as rumored, but the price is a little high for me. I’m hoping we see a D710 with a 24 mpx for $2300, close the gap between the D610 and the D800.

            • neversink

              OK – Why not use the D610 for studio work then? It’s got 24mp but it can’t really be used safely in extreme environmental conditions. Where I live, I have to use D800 and D4 because of the sudden wet weather and dust conditions I often encounter in my work here. I need that build these cameras offer.
              And actually, the D800 might even suit your purposes more, and the price is half that of the D4. That 36mp sensor is very clean, sharp and vibrant with brilliant IQ.

            • DuncanM

              It might sound like a stupid sticking point but my biggest gripe with the D610 is the controls. A lot of things that are at my fingertips now are buried in menus on D610. I’m holding out a hope a true D700 successor comes and brings some of the D800 features (low light and high ISO performance) with it. If I don’t hear rumblings in the next year or so I’ll get a D800, its better suited for me.

            • neversink

              Not stupid. I hate buried menus. I haven’t really explored the D600 for me, but I need more focus points and a tougher body. And I hate buried menus also.
              You won’t be disappointed with the D800 if you go that route. It is really a step up from the D700 in a number of ways. (And I loved the D700 and D3s.) It is a different body though. I don’t mind the slower fps. 4.5 fps is what we used to use in the days of film and it was plenty fast then. I prefer to wait for the right moment. If I need a machine gun, I’ll take out the D4. Also 4K and 6K video may (or may not) change all this……

            • DuncanM

              My biggest problem though is camera shake starts to get me when I’ve been shooting all day. If it can be noticeable on my D700 I can only imagine how compounded the problem can get at 36mp. Plus I still take my camera out to do nature and landscape so I want the weather sealing. I can see why they positioned the D6X0 where they did, but for me the price/feature ratio isn’t there. For D7X00 users its a familiar step into FX territory. For D700 users its a big step backward.

            • umeshrw

              I have read the whole of this discussion between you and duncanM. And guess what ? You two have actually ended up exchanging teams . Read your 1st posts in this volley. Also this whole discussion is like a deja vu experience. It’s like I have read the same thing some time back. But you two have stated some very valid points to be sure.

            • neversink

              Isn’t good to have an intelligent (at least I hope it was) discussion in this joint??? ;-}

            • david

              Absolutely . Refreshing is the word that comes to mind. Intelligent discussion could also apply to the Fujifilm DPReview interview as opposed to the Nikon ‘suits’ bizarre chat. Thom’s view is, it is par for the course with Nikon, and not too much should be read into either interview, adding nuisances may be lost in the double translation process. I am not convinced, and prefer to give Fujifilm the benefit of the doubt till they prove to be as duplicitous as Nikon .

            • umeshrw

              I have read the whole of this discussion between you and neversink. And guess what ? You two have actually ended up exchanging teams . Read your 1st posts in this volley. Also this whole discussion is like a deja vu experience. It’s like I have read the same thing some time back.

        • david

          Precisely , annoying bean counters at work deciding what to strip out and making a hash of it. The crucial fundamentals should not be market/price segmented to such a degree that the photographer centric combination of specs only partially exists in one and the same body.

          With the present Nikon line up, in both DX and FX, something is either missing or not quite ideal, and with ‘a moving target of choices’, formerly unnecessary compromises rule the day.

      • Ernesto Quintero

        @Tonio, you stated: ” The fact that the D7x00 is missing features critical to pros..”

        You are stuck on your theory. D7100 is not a PRO DSLR body, it’s NOT built for “pro’s”. D7100 was de-contented because of stupid decisions. Buffer sucks the big one for birding and amateur athletics. Parents do NOT buy D4’s to photograph their children’s basketball/soccer games.

        • You’re assuming I think that the D7100 is a failed attempt to build a pro camera. No, I think it’s a successful attempt to build an enthusiast camera that won’t be satisfying for pros. Shooting buffer is exactly the kind of thing you can leave out of a camera without fazing consumers or enthusiasts (much).

          If you look at Apple’s product line you see the same thing (if only Nikon were better at copying Apple’s product strategies…). The 15″ Retina Macbook Pro is listed at $1499 or something (I don’t know). But if you look at the actual tech specs, it’s designed so a “pro” user ends up paying $2799 because to get the GPU, the faster CPU, and the extra RAM you end up optioning up all kinds of stuff. The problem with Nikon’s product line is that it’s all over the place — even DX, which is comparatively sane, has problems like the D5300 having built-in WiFi and a flip-out screen which the D7100 doesn’t have. Oh, and Nikon doesn’t get that being small and lightweight is actually a feature.

          The fact is that pros will use whatever camera meets their needs. If Nikon put a 9fps shutter and a big buffer in the D3300, it would become the “dirty little secret” of pros.

  • Volod

    Actually I’d strongly prefer mirrorless to DSLR for the smaller size and weight, but there’s a big reason why I don’t buy mirrorless: to get similar performance to what one could get from a D7000/D7100 it would cost a *lot* more. DSLR is just better value, especially considering the wide availability of older second-hand F mount lenses.

    Of course for those for whom money is not an issue this doesn’t matter …

    • Guest

      The flood of cheap credit makes “those for whom money is not an issue” a much bigger cohort than you appear to think it is. Lots of companies are hoping it’s *real* big for a long time to come. I agree about old F mount lenses though, although my idea of “old” always means no AF and often no Ai. But I”m not a pro and don’t have to care about what the client wants.

    • dpablo unfiltered

      No way, really? Well you just uncovered a whole new truth today, Einstein.

    • John

      I agree. I stay with Nikon for exactly the same reason, although I hate their disregard of customer needs and their half-baked products more and more. Especially lens prices are a problem. Basically only Fujifilm and M43 seem to even care about lenses. I don’t trust Sony at all to produce a decent lens lineup, same with Samsung. Fujifilm is doing a great job, though and so is M43. But still, if you look at the prices, there is just no competition right now. But it *will* change and Nikon will fall…. because they are getting more incompetent every week.

    • Jon Ingram

      True…, true…

  • Merv S

    “In Japan and Asia the mirrorless market is still growing, but in Europe and the Americas it is shrinking”
    I think this is part of the problem, camera makers like Nikon are stuck in the middle and are not sure where to push forward, more resources to something like a D300s replacement and some DX lenses or more focus on Nikon 1.

  • nwcs

    I bet the third party lens makers are more than “insignificant” for purchasers who don’t only use the bundled kit lens.

    • Paul

      right – so that probably means that kit lenses and 50f/1.8s are most of their sales. Is there a lens/sales ranking somewhere? just looking at Amazon…their top 8 lenses are canon nikon 50mm, 55-200, 35mm, etc. this is one channel of course, but it seems like 1 million 50mm lenses are a lot more revenue than 10,000 24-70s

    • Espen4u

      Funny thing is that they survive, prosper and also better nikon on their insignificant share. That should tell us something about the margins that canikon puts on their lenses.

  • WBR

    I’d really like a straight answer from Nikon re: DX and the 300s replacement. For those of us who like to photograph wildlife, DX is the best. What is the problem with exploiting this?

    • AM

      Do you want to replace your D300s? Buy a new D300s and stop whining. They are still available everywhere.

      • WBR

        You are rude. I was just expressing the idea, and hope, of a lot of us who are in DX, that would like to see the best aspects of the D7100 and D300s. Meaning a solid body, a good buffer, and better menu’s. It shouldn’t be a huge issue. I think there are a lot of Nikon users who think similar. If Nikon wants to give up on DX, fine, just let’ them say so.

        • Aztecphotos

          Concur, but I’d add better low light capability while they’re at it!

        • Ceasar Sharper

          I’m a wildlife shooter with a D300S. I bought a D800. The ability to crop is great but the FPS sucks. I’d buy a D400 in a heartbeat. My D300S is useless in a low light situation when I need a high shutter speed with ISO above 800.

          • Mike

            Doesn’t the D7100 have better FPS than the D800? And similar buffer?

            • Ceasar Sharper

              The D7100 does not have all the features of the D300S. Many people believe the D7100 is the top of the DX line but I hope they are wrong. I guess I’ll have to wait to see what Nikon will do if/when Canon rolls out an upgrade to the 7D

            • Ceasar Sharper

              True but the D800 and now 810 has better IQ

          • neversink

            Then buy a D610 or a D4….

        • kparseg

          Canon will almost certainly release 7d mark ii at Photokina in September. There are several prototypes tested, but it’s just not the right time for a final release. Once 7d ii is out, Nikon will release its d400 or whatever it’s called.

          • Ceasar Sharper

            That’s the ticket. The Canon rumors are strong strong and the specification hint at a 20+mp and 8 FPS. That will force Nikon’s hand. Nikon has many designs way in advance. It’s just a challenge regarding marketing and manufacturing. Manufacturing one body means another one is not manufactured. Since Canon only has the 1D, 5D and 7D, their production is less complex. Nikon has/will have the 4S, 800, 610, and 7100.

            • umeshrw

              canon– 6D / 60D / 70D / 5xx D and several other small bodies.
              Less complex?

        • neversink


    • D700s

      Then all 50 wildlife shooters will be happy. Before you slam me I know there are more than 50 wildlife shooters but you have to admit, it’s a very small segment.

      • WBR

        So like I said. If Nikon has no interest in DX, just say so. Then I can switch to either FX, or go for another company.

        • neversink

          Bye…. It doesn’t really matter what camera brand you shoot with. It is the quality of your photo – Composition, use of light, processing. impact of subject matter…..
          I just don’t understand why people aren’t satisfied with what they have.

          • umeshrw

            Why does nikon even come out with new cameras. Why not stick with the 5 year old models. Why do we change our cameras even ? When was the last time you changed your camera?

            • neversink

              Nikon comes out with new cameras faster than the film era (which was a joy) because the technology changes almost overnight and it’s a matter of keeping up with technology. I’m sure it would be easier for Nikon to produce basically the same camera for ten years, like the Nikon F2, but times have changed. The pressure for higher performance is intense, as is the competition.
              Film was great because film was the sensor in the camera and basically you could use the same sensor in any film camera of the same size.
              But, we are now living in the digital age.
              The last time I changed my cameras was when I purchased the D800 and D4 when they came out, so it was not that long ago.

            • umeshrw

              Exactly my point. You could have bought another D700 if it was all the same to you rather than shell a lot more. Also many of us need the robustness and features of high end bodies without needing to spend for Fx. They are not pros mostly. Besides frankly nikon has made us taste blood with D300 like bodies and they are now telling us to eat veggies. 🙂
              P. S. For pros too the pressure for performance is more intense than ever before . Hence the demand for better bodies.

            • neversink

              It is a shame about DX, in a way. I never really liked the format myself, but I understand that many others, pros and amateurs, love that format. Unfortunately, the technology just changes so much. Maybe there is not much of a demand as you believe their is for a Nikon D400
              I’m certainly not a big fan of Nikon’s consumer relations lately. it used to be a great company to deal with when you had a problem. I’ve had to bring a lens back in twice for the same repair. And that is not fun when you live in Africa. The D600 was their Tsunami product and they didn’t know how to handle the situation of so many complaints about dust and oil. Oh well…. Their attitude and response to the D600 problem most likely hurt some future sales. And it probably also hurt other departments’ performance.
              And yes, I could have bought another D700, but when I sold my D3s, I put the money into the D4. I am very happy with both the D800 and D4. I wish the technology wouldn’t advance as quickly as it does. It’s ridiculous how quickly the D4 was discontinued since it first came on the market.

        • mikeswitz

          What other company is making a DX camera that would suit your needs?

      • Patrick O’Connor

        I only admit what I know and I don’t know that. Neither do you. Even if the percentage is small (I don’t know that, either), the numbers are not.

      • Plug

        I suspect that it is not that small, but in the overall scheme of things not huge. However they are a group who tend to buy many lenses including high value telephotos and they tend to have more than one body and flash accessories etc. so they do tend to be high spending individuals.

        • FredBear

          This, I think, is a very sensible argument.
          However if Nikon force wildlife photographers into using FX then they will have to buy the even more exotic telephotos – like 800 mm vs 500 mm.
          Alternatively it would be interesting to know how a 500mm plus 1.7 TC would fare on FX vs 500 on DX IRO IQ.

          • Plug

            In a sense that is what I do already: I use a D800 + TC14 + 300f2.8. But I could do with a bigger buffer and sharply higher frame rate. The other thing I ask for is to lose some of the weight as I am often out in the wilds I imagine the scenario of the D300s successor with the hopefully soon to be available 300f4 VR. Much more agile, similar reach, higher frame rate, better buffer and I would guess with the teleconverter in the equation, comparable picture quality. I am sure I would get the shot more often. I would sell the 300f2.8 and get the 500f4 and then I would have a very versatile DX/FX system for wildlife.

            • FredBear

              Sounds like a sensible route.
              I have the 300 F4 along with D90/D600 and have been considering something longer like to 500/600 but even with the 300 F4 alone – and obviously worse with the 1.4 or 1.7 TC – I find atmospherics ruining the IQ more so than the lens/TC combinations. This gives me pause to think whether actually going much over 400 for a prime is worth the effort – adding a T/C isn’t the limiting factor (other than its possible effect on AF performance).

    • Deep_Lurker

      My own guess is that Nikon itself does not know whether or not it is going to release a D300s replacement.

      • Mike

        My guess is that now that Expeed 4 and XQD 2.0 are here…. it may pave the way for a D400. Expeed 4 is capable of 11fps at 24mp. XQD is capable of 1GB/s. Now that would be a worthy spec’d successor to the D300/s

  • In the interview one executive claimed that Nikon expects the camera market to turn around (it was ambiguous, perhaps just the Chinese market). Insofar as they said anything about market trends, they seemed delusional.

  • Fred Flintstone

    “Nikon believes that the amount the company loses to third-party lens
    manufacturers (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, etc.) is

    If it’s so insignificant, then why don’t you license your fuckin F mount so the bloody things will work properly, rather than update your fuckin firmware to break them!!!!

    • mikeswitz

      Because then they might become significant!

      • Fred Flintstone

        That’s why you license it, and make up the money with license fees

        • Karlo Santana

          The prospect of insignificance hurts more. This is a Japanese company, where pride and perceived status is everything.

          • Fred Flintstone

            And customer satisfaction is nothing then?

            • neversink

              Fred Flinstone… It is not Nikon’s job to make Sigma or Tamron or any to their other lens’ competitors a better company. All these companies are crappy copy cat companies anyway with poor QC. I will never buy a third party lens again. My experience with their “customer service” was horrible and my experience with their product even worse.
              If Tamron and Sigma etc, want to be better companies and produce better products it is up to them to do so alone, not up to Nikon to hand-hold them and help them.
              Flinstone, you are still living in prehistoric times!

            • Eric Duminil

              You might want to take a look at Sigma Art lenses. Concerning “customer service”, Nikon didn’t show its best with D600/D610.

            • neversink

              Agree about the D600 and D610… I do not agree about the Art lenses. There is not only the QC issue, there is the question of being able to use the third-party lens once the camera’s firmware has been updated or once a future camera is released.

            • Eric Duminil

              The 2nd question isn’t about Sigma, it’s about Nikon being assholes.

            • Andrzej Lukowiec

              And what about, if D600 is the last camera (or any product) bought from Nikon? So do not care about future releases. And firmware updates. Unless there is one to “fix” a focus shift on my Nikkors,,,

            • umeshrw

              Focus shift(af tune) has become a major problen in recent times. But it is mainly because of enhanced resolution sensors and less because of QC issues imho.

            • umeshrw

              Art lens’ usb dock compatibility is just to rectify that issue. Also sigma people claim that they can apply firmware updates to certain old lenses if problem occurs.

    • Me

      Notice how Canon doesn’t licence their mount either?

    • neversink

      Why in the hell should they license their firmware??? I leave out your lovely expletive!!!!

  • Mansgame

    I don’t really care about mirrorless cameras. maybe they’ll rule maybe they won’t…I know they won’t be ruling anything for the next 5-10 years at least and by then Nikon has a plan I’m sure.

    What I care about is the loss of trust in Nikon’s quality and customer service. I want these guys to fall on their swords and make a promise that Nikon can be trusted again.

  • Andy

    >There was no answer on the direct question “Will you make a replacement for the D300S?”

    Translation: There was no direct answer on [SIC] the question “Will you show your cards to Canon and Osbourne your inventory?”

  • nikclick

    There are some logical things Nikon’s R&D should know.

    1. Think as a consumer not as their BOSS.
    2. If Mirror less market is not catching up , don’t sit there and make theories as BOSS that they are not selling. Think as consumer why its not !

    a. If u are saying Nikon 1 series didn’t sell. it coz u made advertised its for soccer mom AD. Or at least it sounded like so.But soccer moms don’t like to change lenses !

    b. If u are telling Canon,Fuji,Sony,Panasonic & Oly didn’t sell it has reasons too.

    I) When a customer dedicated to DSLR thinks in terms of money & lens mounts , they will naturally buy DSLR which they think is more worthy.
    If u try to sell mirrors-less @ same price point of DSLR, especially Nikon 1, EOSM etc, it never gonna sell.

    ii) Most people tryst Canon & Nikon pver any other brands.So a good almost perfect mirror-less camera which is priced well, which works with current lens mount & with a good AF-system should sell eventually.

    III) Dnt cry over mirror-less sales.Accept the fact that any one who is serious about photography will buy a mirror-less as a lite weight travel .personal or semi pro jobs.U gave to exploit that market making some thing trust worthy,imaginative & innovative. Happy to know that u are happy with DF sales, but we would have been happy to buy DF if it were mirror-less.Saw Sony A7/7R ? They eate the sahre u could get from a mirror-less DF !

    iv) Nikon is known to be lens maker too, so plz do some research if u can make smaller lenses which are still F-mounts which will fit well on future mirror-less cameras ( a well as dx/fx bodies)

    v) Who will buy a Cool Pix A ? Put the same sensor with goof AF in COOL PIX – P body & let it be interchangeable.

    3. Please stop this hypocrisy. If u think Sigma,Tokina & others are no threat to u , its just coz we customers have more trust on u Nikon , not coz others are inferior.Can’t u see ?? recently Sigma & Tamron are getting serious with their lenses.If they own our trust , even if chip out their AF ability, if they make a counter firmware we will use it. Many of us are just waiting for a Tokina 70-200 f/4 with IS with hope its will be priced under Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR. Didn’t u find any need to update 70-300 VR ?

    A good quality of a leader is not to under estimate his opponents !

    final word –

    “Don’t play BOSS & break our TRUST , We’ll break ur HEADS & HEART of NIKON”

    • Patrick O’Connor

      1. I’ve worked in R&D. Management and marketing direct their efforts.
      2. I don’t think Nikon cares if people buy mirrorless or dSLR or compact cameras. They’ll happily sell whatever people buy.

      Sorry. I didn’t understand much else of what you wrote. My fault, not yours.

  • Jon Ingram

    I read the Nikon interview and it felt cagy to me. I also read the fuji interview and was filled with warm fuzzies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still a Nikon guy, but the execs aren’t doing much to make me love them… or the company… at all. Still love that D800 though.

  • ohnocanon

    On The Mirrorless Front of Nikon. I think the reason that it FAILED…in UK and USA…is that Nikon made a bad camera. A very 10mp Sensor. Come on Guys…Even Fuji and Sony and others were making a larger sensor…Nikon shot their selves in the foot on this front. What is the sensor now? 14MP..slow up Nikon..don’t be smart and put a 24mp sensor in it..till 2020! lol And Canon didn’t get their act together neither. Canon Still thinks it is 2008..and placing their same VERY OLD 18mp sensor…in all their new cameras.

    • Thom Hogan

      And when I tell you that Nikon sold far more Nikon 1 cameras than Fujifilm sold X or Olympus sold m4/3 in the US last year, would you change your mind? ;~)

      • umeshrw

        Very logical. What would be interesting is ” what percentage of sales did nikon 1 lose compared to previous year against those of fujifilm and olympus”? Do you have those numbers?

        • Thom Hogan

          Well first off, I’m not sure that such a comparison is useful. The Nikon 1 models were targeted differently than Fujifilm is doing with the X and Olympus with the OM-D. And the Internet Reality Distortion Field has given everyone a very distorted idea of what’s going on.

          For instance, the OM-D E-M5 probably sold less than 200,000 units in its life, worldwide. I say probably because Olympus only disclosed some of the numbers we need to make that calculation. For the current fiscal year, ALL of Olympus interchangeable lens camera sales will be about one tenth of Nikon’s. Given that a D7100 is a larger sensor, more megapixels, better AF camera than the E-M1 at a lower price, Olympus has a tough road ahead of them.

          Nikon slotted the Nikon 1 at a different level, one that would be competing more with high-end Coolpix and very low end mirrorless. In that sense, they’re holding their own, though they did not do anything close to what they expected.

          • umeshrw

            I felt I did not put that correctly. What I meant was if all of the companies have reduced their sales in this year compared to last year then has nikon taken less hit percentage wise compared to others. Of course I understand your inability to give a concrete answer because of the stated reasons. But this is what I actually meant. Thanks for the reply.

          • David

            You keep missiong the point, not everybody cares for the D7100 even though it might well be considered better by you on specs . It is still too big and so are the lenses available . The missing dedicated lenses farce also mitigates against Nikon DX,primarily at the wide end as you often say.
            M4/3s give tremedous choice with bodies and lenses across the board and the system is a modern interpretation of why 35mm cameras came about in the first place.
            Digital has brought excessive bloat to top spec DSLRS . The present Olympus negative trade off, continually applied to mirrorless, is well worth it for some .

      • David

        No I would not. Greater sales do not necessarily mean something is intrinsically better ,but in this case it might imply that a lot of misguided, poorly informed punters do not know any better.

      • ohnocanon

        Thom you are very correct about Nikon selling the hell out of these weak things…every Metro-Sexual, Homo-Sexual Male Japanese boys wanted the White Camera with the White match their White Shirts and White Pants. Bose makes Paper Speakers, but their ads are for the ones who don’t know better.

  • “North America in particular is “one of the worst geographies when it comes to the mirrorless camera market”.”

    This sounds to me like Ford and Chevy laughing ten years ago at Toyota and Honda for investing into Hybrid technology. I remember reading an article of one executive saying that since the gas is cheap and the batteries that need to go into hybrids are so expensive, the concept will NEVER take off. Not seeing beyond their nose will be the end of this little company in a few years time. And yeah, the mirroless market does not seem bad at all for Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and the M43 system.

  • WolfDengler

    Wow – Nikon doesn´t see a threat in third-partie-lens-manufacturers. I would underwrite this at once if Nikon would make lenses with a better price/value-proposition.

  • acilleas

    i m afraid that that’s the end of Nikon as we know it
    i use Nikon equipment from the 80s…..sad

  • neversink

    Damn… They didn’t mention the African market… Oh well….

  • AdV

    This is what annoys me most:

    There was no answer on the direct question “Will you make a replacement for the D300S?”

    I think Nikon’s customers deserve an answer to this question. When the answer is no, I will be angry, curse Nikon, and when I cool down probably buy an D7100, or D7200. If the answer is yes I will happily wait for it. Either way, Nikon will sell something to me. At this moment I won’t buy anything from Nikon because of the uncertainty.

    Oh yes Nikon: FX is not an option. the cheapest solution would be a D800 and a lot of new lenses.

    • Carlos

      When I see the prices of D300s, D7100 and D610 I know why this decision is so hard. The D400 will be very close to D610 price and I think it will decrease very much the sales of the new model. The same problem Canon has with the 7D.

      • AdV

        I would gladly pay more for a D400 than a D610. A D610 is just a D7100 with a bigger sensor.

        But you seem to suggest that Nikon has not yet made a decision over the D400. If that’s true, why don’t they say so? And if they did make a decision, why don’t they answer the question? What do they hope to accomplish by keeping potential D400 buyers in the dark?

        • neversink

          Repeat – Be happy with what you have!!!

          • AdV

            What I have is a D200, and it is showing serious signs of wear. The D300 didn’t seem that much of an improvement, so I decided to take Thom Hogan’s advise to skip a generation. Now I’m jealous of my friend who has a D3200. Jealous because of the sensor, not the camera. The D300 generation is getting real old now

            • neversink

              Ah.. Shouldn’t have listened to Thom Hogan… He certainly has an interesting web site, but he isn’t privy to the decisions made in the executive board room of Nikon corporation as to what products will be produced and marketed. Perhaps it is time to upgrade to a different camera body and stop waiting for the D400. It may never come out, which I understand is a dilemma for many D300 and D200 owners. Ah, the days of film were so much easier.

            • David

              BRILLIANT! I agree.

  • lan ban

    nikon still the best and the d800e will destroy any mirrorless
    barbie camera with a superb image quality challenge 40 mpix medium
    format easy next year Nikon will launch another Beast

  • zigg

    I’d like to see 16Mpix D400

  • Lolo

    To D400 whinners: if you shut up you ll be able to get closer to that bird and use FX … 😉

    • AdV

      Too expensive..

      • G0nzo

        save some money 😉

  • nwcs

    Too bad they didn’t go into detail about how Nikon will fix their quality control and customer support issues. Both of those are bound to happen from time to time but without any investment in getting better they’ll continue to leak customers to other vendors. The consumers who buy a kit and that’s it are the most likely to move on when other vendors increase their market presence and store shelves.

  • broxibear

    Here’s some D4s porn with added 70’s music to get you in the mood…

  • rt-photography

    Nikon believes that the amount the company loses to third-party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, etc.) is insignificant.

    • Thom Hogan

      Nikon says that because if you look at CIPA numbers, Nikon sells about 30% of all lenses sold. You’d have to guess that Canon’s number is as high, if not higher (Canon doesn’t release lens count numbers, though we can sort of guess at them through their milestone statements). A lot of the other lenses sold are on camera bodies, so that’s Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony. Let’s just call that 10% or so. Which would leave less than a quarter of lens sales to the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss’s of the world, to be split amongst them.

      • rt-photography

        how does it compare to years back? I think the numbers are going up. and it will continue to do so. nikon charges through the roof, and the trio are offering some very lenses as of late. economy is crap and there quite a few nice ones out there thats offered. shame they cant fix the QC. thats the only reason im always hesitant to buy 3rd party again.

        • Thom Hogan

          I suspect you mean “how do lens sales compare now to previous years.” I thought I had published that recently. But apparently not. Last four years of lens shipments went up 30%, up 21.8%, up 28.4%, down 18.3%. So a bit more extreme than the DSLR numbers (faster growth, bigger drop).

          • neversink

            People don’t replace lenses as much as they do camera bodies. So, I imagine that there is a bit of a roller coaster chart over the years with lens sales, but I might be wrong. I still have almost all my old film bodies of all formats and lenses of many focal lengths. I never even used zooms in my work until the late 2000’s. I was always a believer in primes during the film era. I had some zooms that I tested on occasion in those days and never bought them. And I lugged a lot of weight around in manual primes because of it. Now I use both zooms and primes. I have only added lenses when I feel an assignment calls for that lens. I don’t replace any of them, though I might have a lot of redundancy in my bag, with the different primes and zooms. For Example: 14-24, 17-35, 16-35, 24-70 and 24 f1.4 not to mention older AI 24 lenses. These were all bought at different times for different purposes and assignments. The 16-35 I bought after my 17-35 broke down (diaphragm sticking wide open) and had to be repaired twice!!!!. I had a loaner of the 16-35 for an assignment. I loved the lens so much, I purchased one. Hardly ever use the 17-35 anymore. I am amazed at the quality of the 16-35 and think it is great improvement over the 17-35, particularly with the VR, which I first laughed at when I heard Nikon was going to put VR in a wide angle glass. But man, I have hand held down to 1/3 of a second. Of course there were a lot of hits and misses but I was surprised about the number of hits — hey what can one expect. Not that I usually shoot handheld at that speed, but it is good to know that one can.
            Now getting back on topic — I realize most people aren’t like me, but I am sure many other pros and enthusiasts also plan on keeping these lenses way past the so-called ten-year lifespan Nikon now puts on their yellow box. Although with these all these motors and electronics built in, I should probably sell everything within five years and just keep buying new lenses.
            The problem with buying new lenses is that each one has to be tested individually, and I think there are a lot more lemons in a batch of lenses out there than there used to be.

      • rt-photography

        nice to see you on these forums Thom. I like the new look to your site. very clean and modern. bravo.

    • Brett

      OEM parts yes are more expensive than 3rd parties, but I like to have comfort knowing my camera is not going to come loose and rip off the plastic made grip.

      • rt-photography

        youre right, its better to just have the rubber grip come off a huge amount of the time, like nikon cameras do. like my flagship film camera, the F5’s and my F100 and the N90s and the n80 and the D100 and D200. so youre right. if that gives you peace of mind then go ahead. I think people psych themselves up to think theyre getting such great quality for the high price they pay. its perceived value. I see right through it. no grip is worth $260. its stupid plastic piece that holds batteries. I use my grip for 12hour wedding coverages and it just works and works. if you feel like youre getting 5 times the value of a grip like I bought, please be my guest.

  • G0nzo

    Tree years ago, I wanted to buy the D300s, till a friend told me, not to. I didn’t ask him why. I recondisered my decision…I was happy with my D40x that time ^^.

    • rt-photography

      wow thats some downgrade.

      • G0nzo

        you didn’t understand my comment did you?..but posting some smart-ass reply…

        • rt-photography

          I thought you went for the d40x over the D300s. instead u stayed with the shitty d40x. thumbs up!

          and why mention it? to which of the things posted in this article is this relevant to?

          sounds like you just made a random comment.

          I took a shit today and the corn niblets were still whole and mixed in my poop.

          • G0nzo

            you just got boring, after the first line…and someone who put “rt photography” as his nick, can just be a douche.

            • rt-photography

              a douche as big as your nose I guess.

              RT, which are my initials for my name and in wedding photography.

              said the man with the misspelled Gonzo.

              sorry I couldnt be more entertaining.

            • G0nzo

              wow great, your intials,… boring…I could make a joke at it..but I’m not an ###### like you.
              //it’s called leetspeech, Gonzo was/is in use, already

            • rt-photography


  • gr8fan

    Nikon is denial! Wake up!!!

  • zoetmb

    If you read the interview on DPReview, it makes so little sense, it’s shocking.
    – “…decline in compacts…same decline seen for interchangeable lens cameras”
    Same decline? Absolutely not. In calendar 2013, CIPA recorded a 41% decline in compacts vs. a 15% decline in DSLRs and a 16% decline in mirrorless units.

    – “Do you have any products which are only marketed in certain territories?” a: “We don’t specifically target products that way….”
    They do for compacts: The AW120s, S9700s, S6700, S2800, L29 and L330, among others, are available internationally, but not in the U.S. or Japan.

    – “We believe that the North American customers believe that if they want image quality, they’re supposed to buy DSLRs, not mirrorless”.
    Or maybe they just don’t like Nikon’s mirrorless, with a small sensor at extremely high prices (at introduction).

    – “is by creating affinity between our cameras and mobile devices like smartphones”
    Only about five years too late.

    • stoooopid

      “We believe that the North American customers believe that if they want
      image quality, they’re supposed to buy DSLRs, not mirrorless”.

      – yes, and this will be the case for another few years, until everyone gets used to the idea that bigger doesn’t always mean better. Then the companies that have products in place that are well developed and well thought of will start to take over the marketplace. Sorry, Canon and Nikon – but is seems you are already too far behind in the regard. I know we can talk about who made a bigger profit last year and who did not – but the tide will shift and when it does the companies that have well placed products will survive. I hope Nikon wakes up to this and starts preparing, but it seems it is already too late.

  • decisivemoment

    Nikon overcharged for the 1 bodies and put controls on (or, more accurately, left them off) that got in the way of how certain people use cameras. Selling Ashton Kutcher instead of image quality and performance completed the debacle. If they’re writing off North America because we need to have everything big, from houses to bratwurst, they’re delusional. After filling up with supersize brats and lounging around in a big house, we’re so flabby and out of shape that all we can carry with us is a small camera. 🙂

    14MP second-gen Aptina sensor, and choice of a fully controllable general purpose EVF body and an updated AW body . . . . you’d sell a bunch, Nikon, because nobody else has a working underwater camera and nobody else has a camera that really excels in both stills and video at the same time and nobody else has a small camera with AF that actually works. And because they’re so simple to assemble and repair, you’d save a bunch too.

    • stoooopid

      I like the 1 system, but probably because I got it so cheaply. I was hoping for this next round of bodies they would drop back to 10MP, which is plenty for me, and make sure it has the best IQ possible in a 10MP 1″ sensor. That and get their pricing in line with reality.

  • cgw

    Too bad they weren’t cornered about the D600 fiasco. With a class action suit brewing in the US, Nikon needs to consider a long-overdue D600 recall to save face. Retailers had to clear D600 stock at thin profit margins to get new D610 inventory. Arrogance and denial don’t amount to a strategy to hold, much less expand, their place in the market.

    • neversink

      They probably would have said they don’t comment on issues with pending litigation….

  • Nicholas Fulford

    Here is the question: What would it take to get you, (or me), to purchase a mirrorless system as an alternative or complement to the DSLR? What are the advantages of the mirrorless that could be leveraged to make it a viable choice.

    Both systems can use the same sensors, (so no absolute advantage on resolution goes to one or the other.)

    Mirrorless can be smaller, lighter, and less expensive to build, (and hopefully that is reflected in the price, but as we have seen sometimes the market has to pull the price down from the MSRP to the market price.)

    Mirrorless can be a better system for low light, (whether due to grads or overall low light), if the system amplifies the output to the EVF to reflect the settings of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. I for one often find it a right royal pain to focus a DSLR for night photography or when using grads on a tripod. Even a noisy display on the EVF would help significantly in this.

    Mirrorless can be a great system for street photography. The Sony A7, even with just the 35 and 55 lenses has the potential to be a killer system for street and travel. (I can carry a low visibility, low profile camera that does not draw attention of either my subjects or thieves in the same way.) It also would be a better choice for hiking / camping if wildlife is not my subject due to the low weight. This summer I plan on going for a one week camping / hiking vacation, and though I will have my D800, being able to shed some of that weight would be a big, big bonus.

    The big downside so far is that autofocus is not up to snuff yet, (or so I have been told, as I have not used the mirrorless cameras outside of a camera-store under good lighting.) Battery life is often not so hot, and for me, good weather-proofing is important. And yes, there need to be more lenses of suitable quality to invest in a system. The only one that tickles me to date is the A7, and it needs a 24mm, 85mm, 100 or 105 prime. I would be all over it if the 24mm and 100mm lenses were in the line.

    Nikon … if you want to sell high end mirrorless, you will need to come up with something to beat the Sony. It would not be an either / or case, as many of us would welcome a mirrorless alternative for situations in which it is better suited than a DSLR.

    • stoooopid

      I would take a mirrorless Nikon Df in Dx form

  • don.johnson

    “Nikon believes that the amount the company loses to third-party lens
    manufacturers (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, etc.) is
    insignificant” Yeah, right. Explain to Yourself Nikon.

  • Back to top