What to expect next from Nikon

Nikon Rumors
I don't think there will be anything interesting happening in the Nikon world by the end of the year - several new products will be announced for the CES and CP+ shows in early 2016 (January and February). Until then, expect more guest posts and deals/price drops - Nikon has no new products and the only way to generate extra revenue this quarter is by offering better deals.

Nothing has basically changed since my last "what to expect" post from September, so I will just republish it here one more time:

If you have any additional information on the upcoming Nikon announcements, you can contact me anonymously here.

This entry was posted in Nikon 1, Nikon D400, Nikon D5, Nikon D500, Nikon Lenses and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Bjørn T Johansen

    I am still a nikon user because of sigma and phottix. But what i do next is not so obvious. Maybe i go for fuji.

    • Cesar Sales

      Been there, sony too. I keep coming back because the performance just isn’t there. I’d rent for a few days before you do.

    • We’re lucky enough to own full systems for both (his and hers), and what Cesar says is true. There’s a big caveat though, depending on what you do in photography the Fuji system may be a better fit for you. It’s small, beautiful and has an element of magic that tough to replicate in a DSLR. It would also be fun for you simply because it’s new!

      But renting would be a good idea, because the performance is very different. I would recommend trying the 56mm and 23mm if you like primes, or the 18-55 and 50-140mm f/2.8 if you like zooms. The 16-55 f/2.8 is supposedly wonderful, but I have yet to use it.

    • I went Fuji 2 years ago. And I’m still with Fuji, beautiful glass. Only things missing is fast AF in very low light, and better AFC (still not up to nikons standard). But for 95% of my shots it’s perfect.

      With the next generation Fuji’s around the corner I have a feeling low light AF will be vastly improved.

      High quality glass at a reasonable price is what you get with Fuji. If only Nikon released a lightweight camera and f 1.4 DX lenses then maybe I’d still be with Nikon. At the moment if you want the same quality as Fuji glass you have to get FF nikkor… $$$

      • HF

        I didn’t like the XT1 when I tried it for some time. Too small a body, buttons too small and recessed, Xtrans “smearing”. The primes are nice, though.

      • Jamal Mubarik

        Omar
        I have seen Fujinon lenses for 4×5, 6×7 and 6×9 lenses. I agree they are world class lenses. I wish Fuji would make lenses for Nikon mount.

        Which Fuji camera do you use?

        Please advise.

        Thanks
        Respectfully
        Jamal Mubarik

        • Hey Jamal,

          I use the XT1 and XE2 . If you don’t need a camera now I’d wait for the X Pro 2 coming in Jan.

          Otherwise maybe wait and see what Nikon will offer in terms of mirrorless. Nikon do make nice cameras but they neglect their DX range (especially DX primes), which made me switch.

          • Jamal Mubarik

            Hi Omar
            Many thanks for your reply. You are right DX lenses don’t deserve Nikon name. I will, as suggested by you wait for the new Fuji.

            Thanks

            Respectfully
            Jamal B Mubarik
            (909) 348-4349

  • Thom Hogan

    I’ll corroborate most of what Peter wrote. D5 in Jan/Feb. But D400 wasn’t attached to that last I heard, it was scheduled for later. That could change. The other Flourite exotics are in the same queue as the D5, and they pretty much have to be out prior to the August Olympics, anyway. But this is a glass curing/polishing that determines actual date. Depends on how much demand there was for the 400/500/600/800, as capacity is mostly fixed.

    As for mirrorless, certainly Nikon has been tinkering in this space (for most of two years now). I think the internal argument they’re having is where that fits with their DSLR lineup. Personally, what I’m hearing is that Nikon is more doubling down on the serious DSLR side than anything else. When they look at what “worked,” they see D7200, D750, D810. The D5500 somewhat. The Df and D4 were weaker than expectations, but okay. The argument internally is whether to do their first big sensor mirrorless at the bottom (D3300 replacement) or middle (D610 replacement).

    Personally, I think protecting the DSLRs by pushing them further is the better bet right now. But it was the better bet four years ago, too ;~). The lack of filling the DX lens line, the lack of a D400, the lack of a low-light and fast rate FX D8xx type body, the lack of doing anything interesting in the flash side, the lack of getting the video side dialed in right, etc., has hurt them more than any mirrorless system has.

    • Eric Calabros

      a mirrorless D3500 is better start. even Sony can’t sell enough non- R non-S of A7 series. But everybody waits for their A6000 replacement.

    • animalsbybarry

      When and if Nikon goes mirrorless the should do so with E mount.
      This would benefit consumers, making E mount more universally compatable, and put Nikon in a better position for possible future collaboration with Sony.
      It would also better compete against Canon if they try to promote a new mirrorless mount.
      I have earlier suggested Sony buy Nikon…but this should happen even if they do not.

      • It will never happened and I hope it won’t happened. I just don’t trust Sony.

        • animalsbybarry

          I am not predicting it will happen, but think it would be good for Sonikon if it did.

          • I am not sure it will be good. Sony likes to change and abandon technologies.

            • animalsbybarry

              What I would like to see is a universal open mount like Arca Swiss.
              If Sony could be convinced to open it up it would be the best choice because it is currently the most popular.
              If Sony and Nikon both used it others might have to follow.

            • arch_d

              Isn’t the universal open [in theory] mount: m43?

            • animalsbybarry

              M4/3 is a universal open mount….however clearly it is not ff.
              The mount was agreed upon when m4/3 was in its infancy.
              For all intents an porposes ff mirrorless is in its infancy. Only E mount is established.
              So there is precedent for this to again happen in a ff mount, but because E mount is so well established it is the best candidate for a ff mirrorless universal mount.
              If Nikon and Canon each establish thier own proprietary mounts and all cameras go mirrorless, then we will once again be back to nothing being compatable with anything else.
              I have an a7rii and I can use it with any lens.

              I HAVE TASTED LENS FREEDOM AND DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO BEING A LENS PRISONER

            • TheInfinityPoint

              That’s like saying Apple, Microsoft, and Linux should collaborate and create the ultimate operating system, lol! Seriously though, each of the companies (Nikon, Canon, Sony) all have different desires in what they want to accomplish with their future systems, so a one-mount-fits-all standard just won’t happen.

            • animalsbybarry

              Not a reasonable comparison.

            • TheInfinityPoint

              Comparisons aside, my point still stands: they all have different goals in what they want to accomplish with their
              future systems, so a one-mount-fits-all standard just won’t happen.

            • animalsbybarry

              If we cannot use all lenses on all cameras we all lose.

            • TheInfinityPoint

              Lol. Ok, no one is saying it isn’t a good idea *theoretically* to have a universal mount. But practically speaking it can and will never happen. The keyword here is “practically.” Have you ever tried to design a lens? Or a camera system? The only words I see in your post is “want want want.” So, argue all you “want,” it won’t do anyone any good, least of all you.

              Let’s look at cars, which is similar in a way to camera companies in that there are a few companies that make most of the cars out there. Let’s say you have a Toyota. Can your Toyota use an engine from say BMW? Or Nissan? If not, I would call you an “engine prisoner.” Don’t like? Tough.

            • animalsbybarry

              The engine does not have to be interchangeable because you do not change your lens.
              But you frequently put fuel in the tank, and you can purchase any brand of gasoline.
              It would be terribly inconvenient if you had to fill up at a Toyota, BMW, or Nisson gasoline station.
              I would never buy a car that can only use a proprietary brand of fuel.
              When Sony first began making digital cameras they only used proprietary Sony memory sticks.
              I never bought one until they switched to sd cards.

            • Narretz

              Pretty weak arguing. The different OSs might have different goals and strengths, but at the moment any mirrorless mount that’s exclusively FF would do the exact same thing. Creating your own mount is pure vendor lock-in, and nothing more.

      • I don’t want Sony to buy Nikon. I feel like you can never really trust Sony. They have done many iffy things to there customers.

        On the other hand I would not mind seeing Nikon buy the Sony camera devision.

        Nikon using the E mount could be a really smart move. Then Nikon won’t have the issues of limited lens support for there mirrorless cameras, which most other systems have, especially at first. Also as Nikon produces E mount lenses they have a much bigger market for there lenses.

      • CERO

        no company would do that, neither nikon nor Sony.

        both would want to have their own ecosystems to force you to buy their respective enclosed lenses.

        • animalsbybarry

          Many products in many industries have started out proprietery and later the industries have developed a standard that they now all follow.
          In each case the companies first believed forcing consumers to exclusively buy thier oun products would give them a competitive advatage, but then found out that sales increased for everyone when standards were instituted.
          Consumers are much less relutant to purchase an item they know they can actually use, rather than one that will become useless unless they buy other products they do not want.
          Companies will build products consumers want, or consumers will buy the products they want somewhere else.
          Consumers would rather be able to buy the best product than the one they are forced to buy…and sooner or later competition will force manufacturers to build what consumers want.
          Nikon currently does not have a ff mirrorless mount.
          Nikon iether has to develope thier own mount and develope thier own market for it, or share the E mount with Sony.
          Working together eith Sony they can much better compete with Canon…and in the long term they will sell more stuff for a bigger profit then by battling Sony for camera mount dominence.
          I currently have an E mount camera.
          If Nikon were to come out with a competiive E moint camera or lenses I would possibly buy them.
          If Nikon were to come out with a new proprietary mount that was not compatable with E mount….I could not and would not consider buying it.

          • CERO

            Not need to write this big wall. Everyone knows about that. doesn’t mean companies like SONY wont do it.
            Apple still does it, Sony still does it in a lot of products.
            They want to keep you trapped on their ecosystem.

        • Narretz

          “No company” is too strong. Panasonic and Olympus developed (m)43 together, because they were smaller players. With FF mirroless, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji are the smaller players that might collaborate on a common mount.

          • CERO

            Dude, read Sony’s story, same with Apple.

      • Andrew

        The worst thing that can happen is for Sony to buy Nikon. I have invested vast amounts of money on Sony products and love their technology, but Sony is a lousy marketing company. Sony would not do anything to protect their market share.

        Their competitors strike confidential deals with Sony’s retail partners (for example with TVs) and when someone goes to buy a Sony TV, they recommend a competitor’s product because of the larger margin and possible kickback. In contrast, Nikon would burn earth to maintain their market share by pricing their products aggressively when needed or have lots of inventory items to offer at special discounts. Even a financially constrained professional can buy a new Nikon camera at amazing gray market prices.

      • Narretz

        I agree that one mount per company is horrible, but the E mount is just not that great for wide-angle FF lenses. I know that this will get better in the future, but if some companies collaborate on a mount, I’d rather have one that’s optimized for FF. I can’t see Nikon collaborating, though. Maybe Oly and Pana launch a FF 43, and make Fuji join.

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      Could Nikon do something exciting in the DF body series; a Mirrorless Df replacement with video and couple of bodies like the Sony A7 series ?

      • FredBear

        Thinking that the DF was a ‘merger’ between ‘old tech’ and new the idea of a classic body and mirrorless seems to combine the best of both worlds.

        • Thom Hogan

          Yes, but the Df really works best with legacy MF lenses, not so much with autofocus modern zooms, IMHO. Plus it still needs a lot of attention to the details in its design to be a true winner.

          So, if “full frame mirrorless” is to be about giving new usefulness to your older lenses, then a Dfm would have to use the legacy F-mount. Further, Nikon would have to show that they understand how to do focus peaking and other techniques that others have but Nikon hasn’t shown.

          • FredBear

            I was taking ‘focus peaking’ and/or other ways of improving MF as a given because the camera was built (supposedly) to enable the use of older lenses and be ‘retro’ in design.
            As you’re aware, Nikon hasn’t exactly ‘gone overboard’ on MF aids on their DSLRS – ergo no interchangeable focus screens.
            I take your point on Nikon’s reticence in coming forward with focussing aids other than PDAF/CDAF but one could cling to the hope that they may come up with something even better than focus peaking for MF – or at least allow interchangeable focus screens Nikon designed for use with the camera?
            Thom do you think that a camera designed for both AF and MF would sell in appreciable quantities?
            Even without worrying about legacy Nikon glass, having a camera that could efficiently focus (viewfinder) Zeiss lenses (like Otus) must have a market.

            • Thom Hogan

              I consider the Df design compromised. When you use it with modern–especially variable aperture–zooms, you start using it more like a D600 and a digital DSLR, and it’s not optimized for that. When you use it with prime lenses with aperture rings, it feels much more like the old legacy film SLRs and you escape much of the digital side of things. But, you need older lenses with aperture rings, and then Nikon hasn’t really given us a lot of help in the manual focusing realm.

              In other words, the Df tries to sit squarely between the film SLR and the DSLR. Which is not exactly a place to sit. I don’t think it would have hurt sales one iota to have gone all the way back to the film SLR world as much as possible. But someone (or all of management) was unwilling to go “all in” with the Df design, and it shows.

              The likelihood that Nikon would learn from that and go “all in” today is probably lower than before. They’re too much worried about selling new products, and selling against competitors (particularly Canon and Sony), that they won’t see mirrorless as anything other than a way to stop the A7.

            • FredBear

              Can’t disagree with anything that you’ve said. I too was a scratching my head when the Df fell between two stools – IMO they should have designed it more as a classic MF camera.
              Do you know if the Df was a financial success?
              Will there be a Df ‘mark 2’ version (but from your comments even if there is it’s unlikely Nikon will get it ‘right’)?

            • Thom Hogan

              If by financial success you mean “made a gross profit,” yes, it was. If you mean success in terms of unit volume, no it wasn’t.

            • A friend of mine has a DF and he finds it’s perfect for his needs. I have gotten to uses it and It’s a concept I really wish Nikon would explore more.

              The ideas of a DF with a good focusing screen for MF / good MF aids does sound really nice for use with my Zeiss lenses.

              Even if Nikon can not enchance the MF ability, I would still really like to see Nikon make a DF2 with improved AF and a higher resolution sensor.

              The DF pretty much from launch was the camera I really wanted but just couldn’t justify the price of. The AF was the main issues to me. The slower max shutter speed, slower sync speed, no video, and lower resolution, didn’t help it either as an over all package.

              Even more surprising to me as time went on is that the DF has never gotten a price decrease or good rebates. Right now you can get a d750 and 24-120 f4 for less then a DF body. I just don’t understand how Nikon can think the DF is worth that much more then a d750.

            • Narretz

              A majority bashed the Df for it’s weird retro design and lacking innovation. I don’t think Nikon will do this again.

            • FredBear

              But as Thom has indicated, it was a financial success.
              The main complaints were on the implementation side, not specifically the concept.

    • Any word on an update to the D810 or DF in 2016? Those are the two cameras that interest me the most.

      • Thom Hogan

        If the D8xx is really on a two year cycle, it should update in 2016. Given that this is a Photokina year, I’d tend to expect an update then. Thus, it would be a little early for me to hear about prototypes floating around.

    • I’m beginning to wonder if the mythic D400 is even relevant any more. I’ve loved using my D300s and was a D400 user-in-waiting. But the unfulfilled wait for more DX lenses has forced me to conclude that FX is probably the way to go. I need a write-off for next year and will probably pull the trigger on a D750 and a couple/three lenses and call it good.

      • Thom Hogan

        The longer it takes to come to market, the fewer of them Nikon will sell. Nikon chose to try to up-sell into FX, and had success with that. But it came at the expense of a rational product line. Now the problem is that we can no longer trust Nikon to continue to update anything other than perhaps the pro camera, and one has to wonder if the D5 will be the last in that line.

        I’d characterize Nikon’s approach recently to trying to find little holes in the market where they could stuff some new camera sales. Some of that has worked (D800), some hasn’t (Nikon 1).

        • neversink

          I always wondered who the market for the Nikon 1 was. It never made sense to me. If they had put a Dx sized sensor in the Nikon 1 and produced lenses for it they might have hit a home run. Instead, the put all this technology into a camera with a tiny sensor. Most people I know, who are not professional photographers, either buy P&S or low-end DSLRs — but more and more of them are using their iPhones or Samsung phones as their main camera.
          Nikon needs to really rethink who their different markets are, and what products to build around this market place.

          • Eric Bowles

            Nikon 1 was not the ultimate answer. It was a proof of concept allowing Nikon to a) experiment and advance mirrorless, and b) develop a compact camera system replacement. The experience with the technologies and development of components now provides building blocks that can be leveraged into other models.

            The pro FX customer is intolerant of experimentation – the gear needs to perform to spec on a reliable basis. The early AF issues were show stoppers. But high frame rates for sports could be interesting. Put 30 fps at the Olympics and you’ll see some wonderful shots.

            The DX lineup could be a nice place for mirrorless but with an upper end DX model. Features like extremely high frame rates and heads up EVF displays with a lot more function could make the gear a home run.

          • Narretz

            To me, nikon wants to target people who like the compactness of mirrorless ILC, but without challenging their own DSLR. That led to a product that is overall overshadowed by the alternatives, because it has too many compromises that the other products don’t have (e.g. sensor is smaller without a size benefit; cameras can’t compete against Nikon’s other offerings).

            • Deep_Lurker

              I always figured the Nikon 1 was originally aimed as an upgrade for point-and-shoot users who found DSLRs to be too big, too complicated, and too confusing. Thus the aggressive lack of external controls, the absence of a hotshoe, and the strong “this is not a camera for enthusiasts!” attitude.

              But then Nikon overpriced the thing, and turned off the enthusiasts who otherwise be their best salesmen. So the Nikon 1 flopped among it’s intended audience. But a small number of enthusiasts started to pick it up, and Nikon has started to change the focus to those enthusiasts. But Nikon has been clumsy about it, and the Nikon 1 is still hampered by a lingering “not for enthusiasts!” attitude.

        • Deep_Lurker

          Just how much success did Nikon have in up-selling to FX? It looks to me like a half-success, which as you pointed out to me in an earlier thread is also a half-failure.

          Nikon might be trying to find little holes in the market to fill, but it is shooting itself in the foot by refusing to accept that two holes might exist at a single price point. Some of us want a D400 as our $2000 DSLR body, and some want a low-end FX. Some want a D810, and some want a D810h with fewer MP and more FPS. Some want the D4s and some want a D4x – not to mention the big spenders who would buy one of each :o)

          • Thom Hogan

            They had pretty good success at upselling to FX, but it came partially at the expense of the upper DX end.

            Basically, Nikon was one of the earliest to move to the upsell tactic. By selling fewer product at higher price and higher margin, they kept their sales numbers close during the decline, and their profit numbers up.

            It’s also going to hurt them downstream. Getting someone to update a US$1000 camera regularly is easier than US$2000, and far easier than US$3000. Had Nikon updated the D300 on schedule, we’d actually be right at the D500 launch period now. So, two DX updates or one FX update?

            Thing is, I’m sure Nikon has very detailed spreadsheets that analyze every last little assumption about the market and tell them exactly where they get the most pennies back. I saw some of their big calculation models once, and they were impressive in all the things they took into account. But the thing they don’t take into account is brand loyalty and what customers are thinking. Nor do they really have any real ability to analyze what a different approach to camera making might give them.

            When I keep saying “reinvent the camera,” Nikon management simply won’t consider that, as it’s a giant unknown as to what that is and how well it would perform, and it has huge upfront costs to get there.

            • Eric Calabros

              Reinventing the camera needs redefining the photo. its not the thing happen out of silicon valley.

            • Thom Hogan

              Silicon Valley already redefined what a photo is. It’s not something you print or enlarge. It’s not something you put in albums. It’s not in your wallet. It’s not on your walls. “Photos” are 800-1000 pixel max sRGB JPEGs that are moved hither and yon by the Internet and viewed on small mobile devices.

              The “killer” camera right now would be an 8mp totally connected and programmable one. One that was synced with your mobile device. Not just talks to, synced.

            • Eric Calabros

              What do you mean by “Sync”? Having images taken by camera in one of the phone’s folder immediately after pressing the shutter button? But its just extending the storage, in a wrong way. Most of people have 16-32GB phones already stuffed with apps and games data. The whole idea of making cameras slave of smartphone is wrong, IMHO. I just need a camera that connects to my WiFi router, and let me send images to 3-4 most popular social networks. Currently, the only thing I need smartphone for, is to put a watermark on one corner of the image, which could be easily done in camera itself if we had a modern UI in there.

            • Thom Hogan

              Go read my “Gear Where You Are” article on gearophile.com. Perhaps “synced” isn’t the quite right word, as it’s conjuring up something I didn’t necessarily mean: I actually mean something bigger than just having images in two places.

              Both Adobe and Apple are tackling the problem you note, by the way: moving smaller sized images to the mobile device because of it’s memory limitations. But what if you actually once in a while want the full image? Moreover, there’s the notion of “conduit” as opposed to “final destination.” Conduit to what, of course, is an interesting question in and of itself, but frankly, none of the Japanese camera companies even come close to understanding the concept.

              I’ll give you an example. In my new offices, I want my camera to be fully linked with my laptop in the studio. I want the laptop to be fully linked with my desktop in my office. I want my desktop to be fully linked with my offsite backup systems. If I take an image in the studio, I want it in multiple places, in multiple forms, and those absolutely need to be controlled by me, not some arbitrary “we know what’s best” decision made in Tokyo by people who don’t do the work I do. If you read the “Gear Where you Are” article, you can see that I want that EXTENDED to anywhere, any device, any time.

              As for you, yes, your needs are lower. But current cameras can’t even do that, and your needs are actually a subset of mine, so if my idea is implemented, you’re set, too.

            • I really wish Nikon would make a modular camera system. Truly it would be the best way to make all the models they customers want. Who want’s a D4s with a d810 sensor who want’s a d810 with a D4s sensor and so on.

              You can have your body’s that control size, button layouts, AF, LCD screen, card slots, ports.

              Then modules that contain sensor. Then you can mix and max your needs for resolution / speed / and body style.

              I am not sure if it’s better for the shutter / CPU to be in the body or the sensor module, there are pros and cons to each. Personally I think there better off in the body, but I can see it much easer to market / design / support if there part of the sensor module.

              I think this would also help with the up sell philosophy. Many more people would be willing to buy a D4s sensor for 1k more for there d810 then buy a D4s and a D810.

            • Narretz

              I guess Kodak also had these spreadsheets …

            • Thom Hogan

              Kodak’s spreadsheets showed one thing: the margins on electronics were far, far lower than the margins on dead trees and chemicals. Thus, obviously, electronics had to be a bad business.

    • Thomas Lawrence

      Whoever is first out of Nikon and Canon to create an affordable mirrorless camera, to replace their budget DSLRs, is going to have a head start for new customers and will sell a lot of cameras. If you add in a new mount, with an adaptor for existing lenses then you cater to existing Nikon users, then you have competition for Sony. I know, Sony aren’t close to Nikon’s numbers yet, but why let them get any larger ? Most users want a small camera, which is why the sony a6000 is so popular, and Canon/Nikon have nothing to compete with it. At the moment, neither Nikon nor Canon can see that large DSLR’s aren’t what the amateur customer wants. First time camera buyers want a small camera, not a large DSLR. Wedding Pro’s would love a smaller, lighter FF camera, so why not compete with the 810 or 750 ? You may be competing against yourself, but in the long run, if they can get the autofocus to work well enough, it’s a win win situation. Some people will always prefer a larger camera to a mirrorless, and sports/wildlife photographers probably won’t go mirrorless due to the AF. I see no reason why Nikon shouldn’t go all in on mirrorless. Keep as DLSR the D7200 (and mythical D400), keep the 750/810 and pro models, replace the rest with mirrorless, create a mirrorless version of 750/810 and give people who might have bought a 750/810 the option to move to mirrorless. Add in wifi as standard, with maybe bluetooth too for amateur models, which would suck battery life but allow you to synch straight to your phone, that would be a big plus for many casual users. I would see 5300/5500 as both mirrorless, 7200 stays as dslr, D610 moves to mirrorless. 750/810 stay as DSLR with a mirrorless equivalent. Have a new lens mount with smaller primes, and sell a load of lenses to go with the new bodies. Most importantly, do it before Canon do it, and then you’ll get new buyers, and those who bought a consumer Canon DSLR and only have the one lens (that’s most consumer buyers), get them to buy the Nikon because it’s smaller, lighter and syncs with their phone. Improbable of course.

      • Thom Hogan

        Elsewhere I argue against that thought. It’s a tricky position Canon and Nikon are now in. DSLRs outsell mirrorless 3:1. Thus, it’s not about competing with the mirrorless companies (the “1”), it’s about preserving their dominant position (the “3”). That argues against changing the mount, because doing so puts you behind Sony. That argues against giving up on DSLRs, but making them more competitive with the things that people value in mirrorless.

        Nikon, in particular, is extraordinarily vulnerable, as they are mostly a camera maker, so any misstep means that they risk the entire company.

  • animalsbybarry

    Nikon today seems to me like a company desperately trying to survive while trying to maintain outward appearences that they are doing well.
    I believe it might be in both Sony and Nikon best interest for Sony to acquire Nikon imaging sooner rather than later.
    Nikon value is likely to decline…so waiting is not in Nikons best interest.
    Sony is in a battle for dominence with Canon, and Nikon resources would really help.
    Sonikon could build new pro level bodies for mirrorless E mount cameras under the Nikon label, while continuing to to build consumer models under the Sony Alpha label.
    F mount and A mount lenses would both be compatable, and Nikon FE mount lenses could be built to supplement the Sony Ziess FE lineup.
    Together Sonikon could become a force to strike fear into Canon.

    I do not believe Nikon can afford to compete in the Canon Sony battle to come, and without taking any pro-active action may become a casualty.

    • Nikonanon

      Haha, you must be joking, Nikon has a far larger share of the market share than Sony. The professional market is still either Nikon and Canon while Sony comes in third. Also keep in mind that Nikon is part of mitsubishi corp.- Japan’s largest general trading company and also Japan’s largest bank.

      • animalsbybarry

        Nikon value is falling and Nikon imaging may fail.
        Canon and Sony are in a battle Nikon cannot afford to fight.
        Combined they can do much better against Canon.

        • Nikonanon

          The point is- Sony purchasing Nikon imaging does not have much logic behind it, they do not need much financial support and you mentioned in another post that Nikon should stay in charge of management so what is the point?

          • I already mentioned that few days ago – Nikon should buy the Samsung camera division. That way they will instantly get a decent APS-C solution and a good sensor.

            • Nikonanon

              I would love to see a samsung nx1 with nikon controls and handling- ergonomics if you’d like

            • Narretz

              Nikon doesn’t need a APS-C mirrorless system, they need FF, sooner or later anyway. But they could let Samsung develop their sensors.

      • Nikon is not going anyway, Sony will not buy them. Nikon was also behind when the digital revolution started and then they become the leader. They will figure it out – it just might be slower than we want to. Canon is not doing that much better either. Sony is just the trend of the day, just like Fuji was 2 years ago. Heck, they just released a camera with a plastic mount… http://photorumors.com/2015/11/05/sony-a-mount-is-not-dead-new-a68-camera-ilca-68-announced/

        • Gregory Roane

          Wow, PLASTIC mount?

          The first time someone sprays some mosquito repellent on themselves and THEN changes lenses may find that their pretty new camera has a corroded mount (I made a kit lens uglier that way, once.)

          Just one (unlikely, yet plausible) reason this is a bad idea….

      • nwcs

        No, Nikon is not part of Mitsubishi.

    • ZoetMB

      And don’t also forget that when Sony isn’t successful at something, they abandon it. While the A7r series is certainly interesting, in a declining market there’s no guarantee that Sony will still be in the photography business a few years from now. Minidisc, SACD and SDDS theatre sound are all product lines that have been abandoned by Sony. Last year, they even talked about abandoning Blu-ray. The TV unit has been spun off into a separate company (still using the Sony name) and other units are going to follow.

  • T.I.M

    New Nikon items or not, Peter, we all appreciate your time and your work, that help us to take the right decisions at the right time.
    Thank you !
    T.I.M

    • thanks, it slow time now and don’t blame the messenger 🙂

    • What about the “true d800 replacement” schedule of yours T.I.M?

      • T.I.M

        I don’t know, I hope next spring (full HD video at 60 fps would be nice).

    • Fly Moon

      I second that

  • DLynch

    Please no V4, unless they leave the 1″ sensors to the P&S cameras. FF mirrorless sounds great.

  • Robert

    Is there anything out there to suggest an update for either their fisheye or 200mm macro in the intermediate term?

  • sickheadache

    Awe..Snotz. Where is my D900 DX with 10mp, 20 fps. Where is My Nikon D400 DX with 12mp and 18 fps. LOL

  • MonkeySpanner

    So no movement on the recent DX mirror less patent?

    • No, we have one mirrorless lens patent for DX and one for FX.

    • jimh

      I imagine the typical time between the appearance of a patent, and an actual product, is depressingly long.

  • Spy Black

    I wonder if the V4 will finally harken the end of the crippleware cycle.

  • yes, Nikon is part of the Mitsubishi group

  • Debankur Mukherjee

    Do we really need a D400 high end APS C body after the prices of the D750 series bodies are coming down……….

    • James Peake

      I sure want one! As a nature photographer and lover of macro I can’t wait for a high frame rate DX body. Till then will hold onto the excellent D7100.

    • More than body, we need reasonably priced good DX lenses. Also nikon prices their FF bodies cheap and lenses very expensive.

      • Steven Thomas

        There are no dx primes made by nikon that cover am effective focal length of less than 50mm.yes there are full frame lenses but these are very expensive. The new 24 1.8 being a good example. What’s the point in having a cheaper, smaller dx body and then mostly having to use big heavy expensive full frame lenses.

    • Yes I do, as well as many, many other wildlife/sports photographers.

  • maxx

    Thinking that sensors into D810 (from D800) and D750 (from D600) are caming from january 2012, better… maybe from september 2011 when originally these products had to be placed on the market and then they were postponed because of 2011 floods in Japan, when Nikon came with new sensors? Sony produce new sensors (12, 24, 36, 42mp…) such as bread… and Nikon? Why we have to buy sensors so old? From 2011 we have 5 years of technology… to much in my opinion. So I expected Nikon D5 in january but Nikon D900 in august and D850 in october! In the meantime Nikon need to produce a solid mirrorless full frame. Run Nikon, run!

    • Michiel953

      Yes, please run Max. Do it now.

  • true

    I’d like to see mirrorless nikon, but I’m not entirely sure it needs to be full frame. APS-C would be smaller with smaller lenses than full frame with bigger lenses, also probably easier to balance right.

    I also think nikon could fare well with APS-C, it would only compete with fuji or some samsung bodies. I’m not sure the Sony A6000 is as good as same people are claiming it to be, there’s been mentions that the AF’s accuracy consistency is not as high as some people make it be (Tony Northup has noted it in some of his video, I think it was the D810 review video). So I think nikon would be very strong if it were to enter aps-c mirrorless, especially if AF is very good. I think part of the joy of using mirrorless would be lost with the size of FX lenses (maybe applies more to zooms, but some primes like the sigma’s art 50 are too heavy), with aps-c it’s possible to use smaller size wildlife zooms for same effect as tamron 150-600 would have.

    • Ineedmy Bobo

      The only problem with Nikon doing APS-C is that like you just wrote, Sony and Fuji are already doing this, and they have been doing it very well for years. I don’t think Nikon would get any new customers out of this. (In addition to Nikon, I shoot Fuji X and I have to admit that the X-T1 and the wonderful lenses are everything that I wish Nikon would have made.)

      FX mirrorless is still relatively new and while the Sony A7 series is all the buzz, many of the lenses (especially the zooms) are less than stellar. Nikon would still have a chance here especially if they use phase-detect focus on the sensor and can have compatibility will all of the F-mount lenses. While you’re right, the system would still be big, I’d give anything for a camera that is as good as my D810 but was a bit smaller and lighter…

      • true

        Fuji is good for portraiture, but afaik people aren’t using them for sports or wildlife, and I don’t believe neither the APS-C Mirrorless sonys are being used for that either. I think Nikon could have the benefit in both the AF accuracy (as shown by Nikon 1) and lens selection for sport / wildlife users.

    • jimh

      I switched from Nikon DX to Sony a6000 over a year ago and never looked back. Mirrorless APS-C is where it’s at for me – so compact and light, and the EVF is fantastically useful. There is no reason on earth why Nikon should surrender this part of the market, even though they’ve watched it sail past them for far too long. There are significant ways in which they could improve on the a6000.

  • nwcs
  • Graham Blaikie

    There is a lot of discusion on whether or not Nikon should produce a mirrorless camera. As I see it DSLR and mirrorless cameras are good in different areas. There is a very good article on using a Sony a7R II for sports photography on http://tinyurl.com/po7btvq where he concluded that it isn’t ready to replace a DSLR for sports. In spite of that camera’s sophisticated AF he had too many duds.

    The new standard in mirrorless cameras is the new Leica SL with a 4.4mp EVF with very high refresh rate. In the review on http://tinyurl.com/nqqo45t it is stated “Easily the best EVF we’ve used . . To say that the resolution is amazing is an understatement – this EVF must be seen to be believed.” Elsewhere it is stated that the files have exceptional dynamic range. Nikon would have their work cut out if they have any intention of going into this market with a competitive product.

    Frankly I think Nikon would be better to focus their efforts on what they do best: DLSRs. They should also start listening to their market.

    Given the competition at the high-res end from the Sony Alpha a7R II and Canon 5DS R it is understandable that a tweak of the D810(S) is in order, as per recent rumor, with improved noise performance at higher ISOs and updated AF to at least match the D750. But it is also time they tweaked the Df, particularly to fix what a great many people found disappointing: the 39-point AF system that didn’t match the low-light performance of the sensor. As I have stated previously this camera needs the AF from the D750, as well as alternate screens being available for manual focus.

    Then there is the APS-C section. The D7200 is a very fine camera and is top of my ‘to get’ list, but I think there is a strong case for Nikon to come out with the D400 / D9300 that everyone has been hanging out for. But the longer Nikon make us wait the more they are going to kill interest as people find alternatives. They are going to have to come out with a killer camera to regain interest, with performance to at least match the 7D Mk II, along with state-of-the-art video, including 4K, and some lenses! Nikon are dropping the ball here. While we are waiting for good lenses third party lenses are now being produced that are proving superior.

    Hey Nikon! Do something! We are starting to fall asleep!

    • nwcs

      I don’t think the new Leica is all that groundbreaking or the new standard. As DPReview concluded: “Aside from the stunning EVF and unconventional ergonomics, the SL isn’t terribly ground-breaking, and it’s considerably more expensive than full-frame mirrorless (Sony) and DSLR (Canon/Nikon) cameras”

      • We had the SL for few days to review it before it was announced and it is not groundbreaking. Very nice finish and the best EVF available today and that’s about it.

  • MonkeySpanner

    I think Nikon is set for ff options. I would only like to see a DX mirror less along the lines of the Samsung nx1. And maybe, if they feel funky, a competing product to the Sony rx1.

  • Miguel Calatayud

    I dont think the most people needs more as 40 Mpx. Better would be like an Hasselblad to share 14 better 16 bit collor information. For an Otus user had more sense.

  • People find excuses in their gear. Just look back in history, many have made great work with less. It’s not your camera, it is you that needs to switch. Still searching for that magic button that will make your photography above all the rest??? Look inside yourself.

  • Davide Michielin

    4k or better still 5K video D750 is what I need, I would buy 3 immediately were they available! Right now I have 2xGH4 & 3xHero4, D800 & D7200 the best looking video always comes out of the nikons. The colour science is the best and It requires the least grading. Which is just as well because it has the least latitude and the most compression. OK the camera I really want is A D750 with 4K inbuilt stabilisation and unlimited clip record time or a A A7R2 with Nikon colour and 1300 shots per battery & unlimited record time (global shutter would be nice) Buy the way for stills the D800 is The Beast.

  • Narretz

    Ah, old but gold:
    > New Nikon 1 lenses – all but one of the 1 Nikkor prototype lenses shown back in 2011 were already announced. Several new Nikon 1 lens patents were filed recently

    How many times has it been on “What to expect next …” and there have never been any lenses released?

    • I do not make the announcements.

      • Narretz

        But you do make it look like these announcements will result in new products . Since patents are a weak indicator for actual product announcements, I find it peculiar to base your predictions on that alone.

        • Yes, some of those will results in new products, others will not. Do I have to put a disclaimer on every single word I write? I think by now everybody knows that some patents will turn to real products others won’t.

          • Narretz

            It’s just that you’ve been writing the same text about expecting new Nikon 1 lenses for over a year, and a grand total of zero lenses have been announced. At this point it sounds like a broken record. Your other expectations are usually based on rumors and inside info, but for Nikon 1 lenses, it all comes down to patents and the fact that they should be announcing new lenses because they obviously don’t have a complete system yet.

            • Yes, I have been using the same text because I have no other news/rumors to report. Did you miss this part of my post where I basically said that I am republishing my post from September?
              “Nothing has basically changed since my last “what to expect” post from September, so I will just republish it here one more time:”

  • Ryan

    I plan to upgrade my old D5100 to a D810. Glad to hear that more price drop may occur in the near future. Can anyone predict how much lower can the price drop and when will it be the best time to get a good deal? I am talking about within the next 6 month. Thanks!

  • Marat Khafizulin

    is there any possibility of new 135 f2.0 or something like that lense from nikon or sigma in the near future?

  • No nikon new software? I think Capture NXd is great, you dont need Lightroom but if it would have selections it woulb be better

  • Max

    I am eagerly waiting to see what Nikon is going to do with the D3300’s successor. I think at the moment the D3xxx line speaks most of what they want to do goinf forward with their DSLR’s.

  • Back to top