Thanks for this, Jon, it's always a pleasure being corrected on this forum.
So Mito Nikon and Tochigi Nikon are manufacturing plants within the Nikon group ? Where is the main manufacturing being done (DSLRs and lenses) ?
Yes, absolutely. Companies cannot use Nikon in their name unless they are Nikon owned group companies. Mito Nikon was, I believe, an independent group company, but it is now a factory of Nikon Imaging Company which is the photographic equipment arm of Nikon Corporation.
Mito is a city name and the Mito Nikon factory is there. Tochigi is a prefecture name, and Tochigi Nikon is there. Other imaging companies (Canon for sure, I forget who else) also have manufacturing facilities in Tochigi Prefecture.
High end DSLRs and the F6 are manufactured at Sendai Nikon (named after Sendai City). Other DSLRs are manufactured at the Ayuttaya factory in Thailand. I'm not so sure about lenses.
DNG
Film Friendly
Canon is almost done with their Foveon Type sensor (75mp+)
you may see it in an 1Ds Mk ?? in a year or two ?
-----------------------
I think that Nikon should do this....
A 24x36 DRF with a beginning set of lenses...
25mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/2
This will not be a key money maker, but, it will attract a lot of Nikon RF users to invest in a "Special" Nikon DRF retro remake!
Price it at 3/4 or 2/3rds the Leica M9 price.
OR a Mirrorless..24x36..with side mounted EVF (2mp minimum) and 3" Touch LCD
(It will the size of an SP, and have a retro design)
The Lenses: New Mount. NM mount
28-100 f/2.8-4 Kit Zoom
65-250mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom
25mm f/2.8
28mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
90mm f/2.8 Macro (1:1)
I most have gotten carried away
I don't see it competing with Fuji though... more for the wealthy Nikon RF enthusiasts camera
wallace
Well-known
I'd prefer a digital Canon P.....
But my personal digital dream camera would be something like
a Oly 35RC without display! Am I nuts?
Thomas
But my personal digital dream camera would be something like
a Oly 35RC without display! Am I nuts?
Thomas
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
I checked my own notes : The S3 "reissue" was announced in August 2000, its dealer cost was $ 5,000 and the expected sales price was $ 5,500 (calculating a 10% margin for the dealer). Prices from an article in a US photo magazine.
Does anyone remember how these US prices compared to those in Japanese shops ?
Rodchenko
Olympian
The Japanese recommended retail prices were as follows.
Product name: Nikon SP Limited Edition
with W-Nikkor 3.5 cm f/1.8, Serial Number Certificate, lens cap, lens hood, and camera case
Suggested retail price: 690,000 yen (724,500 yen including tax)
Order accepting period: January 14, 2005 to June 30, 2005
Start of sales: March 18, 2005; handed over to the customers at the shop counter
Number of units produced: 2,500
Product name : Nikon S3 Year 2000 Millennium Model
with Nikkor-S 50 mm f/1.4, lens cap, and lens hood
Suggested retail price : 480,000 yen (504,000 yen including tax)
Order accepting period : April 6, 2000 to June 30, 2000
Start of sales : October 2000
Number of units produced : Approx. 8,000
Product name : Nikon S3 LIMITED EDITION BLACK
with Nikkor-S 50 mm f/1.4, lens cap, lens hood, and camera case
Suggested retail price : 530,000 yen (556,500 yen including tax)
Start of sales : June 2002
Number of units produced : 2,000
More info at the links below:
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-sp/
http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-s3/
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
Thanks Jon. I see that the SP wasn't that much more expensive new than the S3 LE Black, but I think it is the more desirable of the three reissues, which is reflected in its resale price today.
It is also interesting to learn that the S3 chrome didn't include a camera case.
I also find this on the web : "Similar to the chrome finished version of the S3 Y2K classic rangefinder, this black chrome (sic) finish version was announced shortly after the original offering of the S3 Y2k. Other specifications remain the same except the serial numbering started from S3 30xxxx instead of S3 20xxxx for the original S3Y2k."
Rumour has it that demand was strong for a black version since the S3 2000 Millenium came out, but I can't find any confirmation on this.
Jan, I remember reading something in Japanese about how the black version came about. In short, when the silver S3 reissue was released, Nikon fans/collectors in Japan responded with something like "it's nice, but why no black version?". So Nikon made a black version. Then those same Nikon fans/collectors responded with "the black version is nice, but why no black SP? Can't you make one?". So Nikon was kind of pressured into making the SP just to prove they could do it. Initially it was thought that the SP's finder was too complicated to reproduce. But they managed it.
The S3 reissues were initially manufactured because Nikon Imaging Company thought there would be a niche for them, because the RF revival was occurring at the time (a big part of which was due to Cosina). The SP reissues were made as a matter of pride basically to show that Nikon could do it. They knew it would be a money loser from the start.
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
Thanks for the information, Jon. Something that can probably be relegated to the realm of (internet) urban legends is that Nikon changed a number of chrome S3 2000's that didn't sell and converted them to black Limited Edition S3 2002's. Given the different serial number sequence mentioned in a previous post, I think this is highly unlikely.
Something else I found on the CameraQuest site :
"According to Mr. Shibata, who has worked with Nikon developing the new S3, Nikon cut off the orders at 8000 cameras. Production by hand assembly is only 300 per month, so it will take years for all of the new S3's to be delivered. Deliveries will start in the November 2000. Nikon's cost is more than the selling price of the camera, over $6,000 each." and " Though original plans that orders would ONLY be taken in Japan, there are several reports that 200 S3 2000's will be available in the US on a lottery basis."
I hope someone at Nikon is reading this, so we can "pressure" them into making something along the lines of a digital RF or equivalent system. We already know that Nikon failed to make a commemorative F some years ago. I recall this has been discussed on this forum. All we got was a 50 year F-mount logo (see below)
http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/0303_f-mount50th_01.htm
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
You should give him a call.
lynnb
Veteran
Nikon relies on selling DX (APS-C) cameras for most of its profits. It also sells a lot of digicams but margins are very tight for these and cellphones are stealing the market.
With the total market for DSLR sales slowing there is a lot of pressure to maintain margins and profitability. There are profits in lenses but at present Nikon has too few quality DX lenses in wide angles and primes - compared to FX (full frame) lenses, according to Thom Hogan who is probably one of the better-informed Nikon-watchers around.
If I were in Nikon's shoes I'd make it my priority to provide a good lens selection to DX users. This assumes that only a small minority of DX users will migrate to FX - I think that's a safe assumption. I wouldn't put resources into a niche product like a digital RF, however much I'd like to see one. The Coolpix A is more the way I'd go. I can sell a new improved model each year.
Perhaps the much-maligned Nikon 1 system is Nikon's best response. Despite the DOF handicap of a smaller sensor, Nikon seems to be releasing quality fast primes for this system, and the AF is reported to be extremely fast and accurate. Manufacturing costs for the 1 are much cheaper (EVF, fewer parts, less mechanical). Maybe the Nikon 1-system is a test bed for a future APS-C mirrorless system? If so it's almost certainly going to use AF lenses, and an EVF like NEX, to keep manufacturing costs low. Support for legacy lenses with focus peaking.
Fuji is a small manufacturer doing great things and expanding quickly from a low base. As mentioned in another post above, Nikon's market is much bigger, and times are tough. I can't see them allocating resources to a digital RF like the RD-1, ever. My impression is that they've got much more pressing problems to deal with.
Having said that I've got a nice collection of Nikkor primes and I'd love a digital Nikon RF the same size as an FE. I doubt I could afford one if it was manufactured.
With the total market for DSLR sales slowing there is a lot of pressure to maintain margins and profitability. There are profits in lenses but at present Nikon has too few quality DX lenses in wide angles and primes - compared to FX (full frame) lenses, according to Thom Hogan who is probably one of the better-informed Nikon-watchers around.
If I were in Nikon's shoes I'd make it my priority to provide a good lens selection to DX users. This assumes that only a small minority of DX users will migrate to FX - I think that's a safe assumption. I wouldn't put resources into a niche product like a digital RF, however much I'd like to see one. The Coolpix A is more the way I'd go. I can sell a new improved model each year.
Perhaps the much-maligned Nikon 1 system is Nikon's best response. Despite the DOF handicap of a smaller sensor, Nikon seems to be releasing quality fast primes for this system, and the AF is reported to be extremely fast and accurate. Manufacturing costs for the 1 are much cheaper (EVF, fewer parts, less mechanical). Maybe the Nikon 1-system is a test bed for a future APS-C mirrorless system? If so it's almost certainly going to use AF lenses, and an EVF like NEX, to keep manufacturing costs low. Support for legacy lenses with focus peaking.
Fuji is a small manufacturer doing great things and expanding quickly from a low base. As mentioned in another post above, Nikon's market is much bigger, and times are tough. I can't see them allocating resources to a digital RF like the RD-1, ever. My impression is that they've got much more pressing problems to deal with.
Having said that I've got a nice collection of Nikkor primes and I'd love a digital Nikon RF the same size as an FE. I doubt I could afford one if it was manufactured.
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
That's the whole point of us wanting a digital Nikon RF. Most long-time Nikon users like myself have a bunch of high quality glass and fast primes that would be great to put to a digital use, if of course Nikon could get a camera to take advantage of these lenses designed for film use. Other manufacturers (should I say, more daring and venturesome manufacturers ? ) have shown them this is perfectly possible.
I know there is an alternative available out there for those of us who want a real digital RF. But why should I give my money to Leica if I have other glass I can use ? Why invest in a Leica body and Leica glass if all we need is a Nikon body ? Even at 2/3 the price tag of a Leica, I'd be more willing to spend the money.
I have been a Nikon user for over 30 years now. Half of the gear I have was made before I was born and it would be nice to see Nikon pay a tribute to its legacy and to its long-time users. I'd love to see Nikon get up and surprise us, they have done so in the past.
Dez
Bodger Extraordinaire
I suspect this is a job for Cosina Voigtlander. They seem to have a knack for providing excellent and cost-effective products for small niche markets. Then again, they seem to be concentrating on M4/3 and M-mount lenses, so they may not feel that the Nikon S mount provides a big enough market for even a nimble company like CV.
Cheers,
Dez
Cheers,
Dez
Aristophanes
Well-known
Looking at Nikon's statements it would appear that FX bodies and glass have more profits per unit than DX. but DX accounts for considerably more revenues. The APS-C market has more competitors and is more cutthroat on margins. FF is much more likely to have after-market sales of MSRP and higher-margin items. If you can afford a $2-3,000 body...
Obviously Nikon is hoping their 1 series replaces a lot of P&S revenues. Time will tell. BUt I do not think Nikon is planning at this point any larger sensor in mirrorless, in part to protect their DSLR revenues, but also I think because they see mirrorless as a complement to DSLR. The Coolpix A is a test of the waters for a complementary camera, but not a system camera. RF optics and digital are such a complex problem as Fuji demonstrates. Expensive optical VF's are very niche and there is actually not a huge market for over $1,000 cameras. Its a lot smaller than people think.
Fuji's camera division is losing money. Fuji Imaging is supported by cost-shifting from other parts of this well-run company. People think the X-series is a success, and for some mindshare it's done well, but Fuji needs to get more ROI from their system camera foray and that means more bodies and far more low-end sales. But their sales have not been all that good. Lots of hype and good reviews, but also lots of models and therefore more costs and capital outlays. Fuji was very reliant on P&S sales for major revenues (more models in that segment than even Canon and Sony). The downturn in the system camera and P&S markets could hurt Fuji the most (after Olympus which is hanging on by a thread). Fuji is in a race against time to get more customers into their system so the current emphasis is on price and value. But the equity people think Fuji's going after money too low on the food chain to satisfy returns and the cost for each new customer is really a loss. Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic are the 3 most vulnerable to the demise of P&S due to smartphones.
Aristophanes
Well-known
The way in which camera manufacturers make money is through repeat lens sales. Margins on camera bodies are thin and rarely provide enough return. Digital sensors and systems aggravate this situation by forcing faster obsolescence and therefore more outlay on design, assembly, and distribution on repeat models.
You build a camera to sell lenses. Use of legacy glass actually hurts the bottom line. It's the past cannibalizing the present and future.
DougFord
on the good foot
If Nikon ever took it upon themselves to design and produce such a beast, the limited run jewel would be beyond the cost of an m240 I'd think.
What's the market like in both Japan and China for a limited run Nikon FF dRF?
We are living in a world where Hasselblad is *selling* the Lunar for 7k usd.
Anyway I'd think few would be in use. These would be for the collectors. Some sort of Nikon anniversary edition. A design and engineering exercise/showcase.
But no, I don't see it happening.
What's the market like in both Japan and China for a limited run Nikon FF dRF?
We are living in a world where Hasselblad is *selling* the Lunar for 7k usd.
Anyway I'd think few would be in use. These would be for the collectors. Some sort of Nikon anniversary edition. A design and engineering exercise/showcase.
But no, I don't see it happening.
Jan Van Laethem
Nikkor. What else?
Aristophanes said:
True when you start out, but once you are building a system, I think you'd rather be upgrading the body to go with your existing lenses. So for Nikon there is money to be had both ways. If Nikon can't and probably won't make a digital RF, I'd still be pleased with an FM3A-D of some sorts that has been hinted at earlier in this thread.
I think the S3 Year 2000 and the SP 2005 were precisely that : engineering exercises and a showcase for Nikon. Neither of these two models were created to boost Nikon sales. In fact, if that had been the case, why limit themselves to 2,500 units of the latter ?
From 2005 to 2010, new film cameras were already on an inevitable slope downwards. If I recall correctly the F6 rolled off the Nikon belt in 2004 and several years later it was pretty much clear we'd never see an F7.
You may be right about that.
JonR
Well-known
There has always been a lot of discussion here at RFF about digital rangefinder cameras and all of us Nikon fans would of course like to see a "true" Nikon digital RF.
Over the last year I have been using two Fuji cameras a lot which I think come very close to the same experience while at the same time taking true advantage of the new digital opportunities - the fixed lens X100 and the smaller X20 with a zoom lens. The X100 with it´s unique optical viewfinder comes very close to a rangefinder feeling I think and the X20 with its small size and zoom is an absolute fantastic camera to just "bring along".
I still shot film and I like my Nikon RF´s but with cameras like X100 and X20 from Fuji I think there is a great continuity from the "old world" to the "new world", much more so than what you had a few years back!
JonR
Over the last year I have been using two Fuji cameras a lot which I think come very close to the same experience while at the same time taking true advantage of the new digital opportunities - the fixed lens X100 and the smaller X20 with a zoom lens. The X100 with it´s unique optical viewfinder comes very close to a rangefinder feeling I think and the X20 with its small size and zoom is an absolute fantastic camera to just "bring along".
I still shot film and I like my Nikon RF´s but with cameras like X100 and X20 from Fuji I think there is a great continuity from the "old world" to the "new world", much more so than what you had a few years back!
JonR
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
This is absolutely true.
I modified my Nikon D3 with a Canon EOS-1V split-prism focusing screen so I could use some fantastic AIS Nikkors. Now I have a camera that has a viewfinder that is almost as good as my old F4 VF but has a much better meter and faster processor. My eye is still more accurate than the AF sensor in the D3 when using fast lenses like my 85mm f/1.4. So now I have a bunch of lenses I only dreamed about in the 90s that work as well, if not better, than their contemporary counterparts, are built far better and I paid 1/10 the new price for them.
For those of us that grea up on shooting manual focus primes and just like the way they draw/feel/handle/are built, there is no substitute. We're going to continue to cannibalize the present and future.
As for a digital SP, I'd love it. Kodak had the "Italian flag" color banding fixed in firmware as far back as the DCS Pro SLR/n/c of eight years ago though that was using retrofocal wides. Leica still has that problem with deep non-retrofocal wides which is why they are moving towards the more retrofocal longer lens design to keep light as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. They issued the Super Elmar and even made it an f/3.4 to tug at the heartstrings of the Super Angulon adherents.
Nikon could do it but as has been said, it would be low volume and the company would take a loss especially if they put a mechanical/optical rangefinder in. They could hybridize it a-la Contax G1/G2 with servos controlling the RF with feedback from the lens. It would be a "chipped" lens design that told the camera where it was focused electronically and the RF prism would be moved with a servo. Complicated but the electronics would remove the delicate linkage and so take out about 3 points of adjustment or repair. Simply mount the lens and the RF prism would rotate atop a tiny servo to suit focus confirmation. Hell, they could do it with the existing G contacts, that's exactly what they are there for.
Ok Nikon, it's on the record. We're all awaiting our new cameras and our residual checks.
Phil Forrest