OK Nikon, Where is the Nikon Mirrorless ?????

[brennanphotoguy]

I don't think an instant film camera is the answer to their financial woes.

 

[Emile de Leon]

When profits are down..the last thing you want to do is take risks..
But...that's exactly what they should do..
The ole..catch 22..

 

[HHPhoto]

I don't think an instant film camera is the answer to their financial woes.

Fuji is making much much more money with their Instax products compared to all their digital products......Look at their financial reports.

The DSLM market
- is decreasing
- has lots of very strong competitors, which are established in that market for years
- is very small compared to other camera segment markets
- huge investments are needed for a company to enter this market.

That is simply the hard reality.
Nikon at least should very carefully evaluate taking the risk to enter such a market. They definitely have to think twice.
And they should take time also to evaluate alternative strategies.
That is all I am saying.

Maybe they can be successful in DSLM market. But I am sure it is extremely hard to get to this point.......

Cheers, Jan

 

[BillBingham2]

Nikon needs to play to their strengths. My read is that for the past seven to ten years or so that folks in the marketing department have been playing follow the leader.

Almost every camera market is Full-O-Stuff that's good enough for many. Nikon needs to play to their strengths, Optics, System Integration, Professionalism.

The Nikon 1 has strengths (size and AF speed), play to them. Bring out a few prime wides that DONOT use software in the camera to adjust distortion, they are much better than that. Give us world class glass for folks who want a fast small interchangeable lens camera. Play to the strengths, add master flash control, etc, make it a full part of the family!

As the Coolpix A is there, make an A2 (add master flash, improve AF, WiFi, etc) to widen the appeal to serious photographers who have LOTs of Nikon gear (leverage your base).

Simplify your software and remove 3/4 of the special modes and artistic modes you have.

They need to be in FFM (Full Frame Mirrorless).

Look to the Nikon F as how to do it. Start with off the shelf stuff (e.g. EVF) and make it modular so people can upgrade EVFs over time. Don't put a viewfinder on the body, but have two hot shoes. Make both the same, one on the far left of the camera (for left eyed shooters) one in the middle. Allow them to take an EVF, Electronic Flash, or an Optical Viewfinder. If you look at the F prism history you see how it got better pretty quickly, take the same approach.

Glass, has to be the F mount, no reason for changes.

B2 (;->

 

[NIKON KIU]

As much as I wish for another film camera from Nikon, I don't think it will ever happen.
I can envision some limited edition 100th year anniversary meant for Japan F6 or something along the line.

By now, Nikon is heavily invested in their own mirrorless Nikon 1
It'll be rough to just get out.

I see no future for the Coolpix line, P&S cameras are doomed, it was wise to get out the premium line they planned, it will be even more so if they did away with the Coolpix and went a new direction.
I do expect something fresh for the 100th year.

Kiu

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Fuji is making much much more money with their Instax products compared to all their digital products......Look at their financial reports.

The DSLM market
- is decreasing
- has lots of very strong competitors, which are established in that market for years
- is very small compared to other camera segment markets
- huge investments are needed for a company to enter this market.

That is simply the hard reality.
Nikon at least should very carefully evaluate taking the risk to enter such a market. They definitely have to think twice.
And they should take time also to evaluate alternative strategies.
That is all I am saying.

Maybe they can be successful in DSLM market. But I am sure it is extremely hard to get to this point.......

Cheers, Jan

I didn't say they needed to make a mirrorless camera either. I just said an instax camera wouldn't solve their problems.

If you ask me they need to simplify their product lines by eliminating the point and shoots except for maybe a few higher end models, eliminating the D5XXX and D3XXX lines and focusing on pro and prosumer products instead. I say what they need to do is release a retro styled camera that isn't half-a$$ed like the Df was. That might differentiate their product line a little more and get more people interested because they look cooler. People who want a better camera but think their iPhone is great (they really are though) aren't going to buy a camera because it has 8fps. They are going to look at aesthetics that differentiate it from product X from manufacturer Y.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

But the reality is different:
In 2016 the ILC market share for DSLRs was 72.5 %, for DSLM only 27.5%.
I doubt that DSLM will have a bigger market share in the future compared to DSLRs. I am convinced DSLRs will have above 60% market share in the long run.........


The main reason for photographers to go for DSLM is that they want a bit more compact and lighter system.

Jan,

I am not trying to be argumentative just to be argumentative, only interested in a discussion. When saying that "the main reason for photographers to go for DSLM is that they want a more compact and lighter system", I am wondering if you took the time to read the linked article. There are a myriad of technological reasons why mirrorless is just 'better' than SLR bodies either already or coming soon, and they are detailed in the article. Lighter and more compact is not close to the main reason speaking only for myself.

Mirrorless is not yet a perfect system, by any means, but the two main issues it has had in the past, the EVF and focus tracking and speed, are rapidly being overcome, and these are problems which can be fully overcome with time. Likely not too much more time.

Pointing to market share in 2016 is not an indicator of where companies need to position themselves to be around in the future, any more than saying that market share of mirrorless in 2003 was 0% and market share of SLRs was 100%, which it was (if comparing only those two). If anything it just shows how rapidly, if taking the long view, SLR share is eroding.

I would love for Nikon to be around, and at or near the top, for as long as people want the best out of photography. After taking stock of the present technology of DSLRs, and the developing tech of mirrorless (as explained in the linked article), I sold my D800E a couple of years ago in order to wait for Nikon to do mirrorless, but do it right which no one had then yet done. What I was waiting for was a D5 level mirrorless body, which I was hoping would have been revealed at the last Photokina. But, we got Key Mission instead. That hurt.

I've handled, owned, and shot with a lot of mirrorless bodies, from pretty much every manufacturer, many of which returned fabulous results, but none of which were truly "there yet" operationally for me. But, they are getting there. In the meantime, I've just been shooting film, mostly.

The only two extant mirrorless bodies available now which would be worth the expenditure to me (to me, that's all I am saying) are the Leica SL and possibly the new Hasselblad.
What I was hoping for from Nikon was an SL level quality construction body, with an equivalent or better EVF and equivalent or better sensor, for less money (hoping covers a lot of ground). My thinking was that if Nikon is, or wants to again be, the giant of the photography world, it needs to act like the giant and blow people out of the water. But, then, Key Mission, and acting more like Lomo. Apparently my thinking was off a bit🙂

I don't pretend to have any idea what they are thinking at Nikon, and hope for the best, but, long term, I don't think they will regain the place they once had at the table without a world class mirrorless system. It's never too late to be better than everybody else if you have the brains, the foresight, and the will.
All the funding in the world won't get you there without those, and, if you have those you can get the funding.

 

[BillBingham2]

..
If you ask me they need to simplify their product lines by eliminating the point and shoots except for maybe a few higher end models, eliminating the D5XXX and D3XXX lines and focusing on pro and prosumer products instead. I say what they need to do is release a retro styled camera that isn't half-a$$ed like the Df was. That might differentiate their product line a little more and get more people interested because they look cooler. People who want a better camera but think their iPhone is great (they really are though) aren't going to buy a camera because it has 8fps. They are going to look at aesthetics that differentiate it from product X from manufacturer Y.

Bring out a digital F body with much of the electronics stuffed into a FTn prisim, damn would they sell out every production run.

 

[hap]

Japanese and many others like hip and cache......maybe Nikon should buy lomo or look to support millions of folks who own their film cameras. Make better long reach zooms in the cool pix or new line. Put evf on A. Df a great camera....easily made better.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

By now, Nikon is heavily invested in their own mirrorless Nikon 1
Kiu

Ooooh, how I wish that were the case. It's kind of fun periodically to go over to the the DPR "Nikon 1 System talk" forum, watching, for years now, the 'when is the V4 coming out' threads pop up.

Don't get me wrong, I love my V1. Actually prefer it to V2 or V3 operationally and for the integrated EVF. Some of the lenses are stellar, some are very much not (plastic mounts on the kit lenses, really?). It's a great camera for what it is, solid as a rock, lightning quick focus, (the NEX7 I sold is probably still hunting for focus on that shot of mermaids I tried to get 3 years ago. Dang that would have been a money shot.) and quite nice within it's ISO limits. I just bought another one.

Anyway, the Nikon 1 was more of a marketing failure than a camera failure, and I'd guess they lost money on it, but it does not seem like they have been heavily invested in it for years.

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan,

I am not trying to be argumentative just to be argumentative, only interested in a discussion. When saying that "the main reason for photographers to go for DSLM is that they want a more compact and lighter system", I am wondering if you took the time to read the linked article. There are a myriad of technological reasons why mirrorless is just 'better' than SLR bodies either already or coming soon, and they are detailed in the article. Lighter and more compact is not close to the main reason speaking only for myself.

Larry, I have to disagree:
1. Yes, I've read the article. And from my experience with the different systems there are much more problems with DSLM technology, and much less with DSLR technology.
2. Yes, DSLMs are getting better. But DSLRs are getting better, too (but they are of course already more matured).
3. As soon as DSLMs are on a mature level, they will see exactly the same problem as the DSLRs are currently facing:
Declining sales because the photographers are refusing to upgrade. They are using their expensive DSLMs just longer, and will not buy new in every new model cycle.

In the end all that leads to a situation, that market shares will not differ so much in the future compared to today: With DSLRs having the significantly bigger market share compared to DSLMs.

Cheers, Jan

 

[xayraa33]

There are too many camera brands of mirrorless cameras already and we don't need another " me too" mirrorless camera, especially an APS sized senor one.

How about a digital full frame Nikon SP?

Something arcane and modern at the same time to compete with the Leica products.

Yes, I know, it will be expensive and it will not sell in great quantities, so it will do zilch to help Nikon financially.

 

[pgk]

FWIW I went to a photo show last year organised by my local camera dealer. By far the most innovative manufacturer was Leica! New products, in a variety of categories but only one dSLR which should tell us something. The least innovative were clearly Nikon and Canon. In between were the others who had some good stuff and were clearly vying with each other. As a second choice of innovative gear I'd place Sony - quality and a mix of conventional and very unconventional. Just my take but now is not a time for manufacturers to sit back and hope, its a time for manufacturers to find out what their potential customers are really likely to buy and build it. Personally speaking, having owned numerous dSLRs and SLRs I can't say that I'm going to buy any more, unless they offer something impossible in any other type of camera in the future, which surprises me too! Digital has changed everything and is likely to continue to do so.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Larry, I have to disagree:
1. Yes, I've read the article. And from my experience with the different systems there are much more problems with DSLM technology, and much less with DSLR technology.
2. Yes, DSLMs are getting better. But DSLRs are getting better, too (but they are of course already more matured).
3. As soon as DSLMs are on a mature level, they will see exactly the same problem as the DSLRs are currently facing:
Declining sales because the photographers are refusing to upgrade. They are using their expensive DSLMs just longer, and will not buy new in every new model cycle.

In the end all that leads to a situation, that market shares will not differ so much in the future compared to today: With DSLRs having the significantly bigger market share compared to DSLMs.

Cheers, Jan

Jan,

Thanks for the response. Fair enough.
I certainly don't disagree that there are declining sales in general all across the spectrum which poses large problems for everybody. I don't see that changing.

Time will tell. Let's both subscribe to this thread and come back and look at in in 10 years and see what actually happened. I was probably going to be dead by then, but will try to hold on.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Ooooh, how I wish that were the case. It's kind of fun periodically to go over to the the DPR "Nikon 1 System talk" forum, watching, for years now, the 'when is the V4 coming out' threads pop up.

Don't get me wrong, I love my V1. Actually prefer it to V2 or V3 operationally and for the integrated EVF. Some of the lenses are stellar, some are very much not (plastic mounts on the kit lenses, really?). It's a great camera for what it is, solid as a rock, lightning quick focus, (the NEX7 I sold is probably still hunting for focus on that shot of mermaids I tried to get 3 years ago. Dang that would have been a money shot.) and quite nice within it's ISO limits. I just bought another one.

Anyway, the Nikon 1 was more of a marketing failure than a camera failure, and I'd guess they lost money on it, but it does not seem like they have been heavily invested in it for years.

Larry,
They can still get it right, the direction could be corrected.
But they are heavily invested, since the introduction in late 2011, the entire line has been updated a few times. Today, looking at the Nikon USA website, they offer 3 cameras along with 13 lenses, 4 different flash units, not to mention other gadgets, some of the lenses are offered in 5-10 different colors!
It also seems they retired quite a few models in the line.

Obviously they have abandoned the premium line of Coolpix to do something else, we just have to wait and see what it is.

----------------------------------

I also like to make a side note here, Nikon has produced 40 million more lenses since they announced 60 million in 2011

The DF was announced in November 2013

Kiu

 

[BillBingham2]

...Time will tell. Let's both subscribe to this thread and come back and look at in in 10 years and see what actually happened. I was probably going to be dead by then, but will try to hold on.

My guess is with the crazy speed of business these days we will have a pretty clear picture in three to five years max.

B2 (;->

 

[DougFord]

Consolidation.
Maybe not Canikon but maybe Foxconnikon. 😀

 

[willie_901]

Must admit I have been a little surprised at some of the comments indicating that Nikon, in order to survive, should actually stay out of the mirrorless market. I had been under the impression that no one still believed there was any significant, market dominating, future for SLR bodies, though there might always be a niche. Only time will tell, but the slow response of Nikon management to changes in camera paradigms seems problematic to me. It seems troublingly reminiscent of Graflex management advocating "stay the course, we have the pro market covered", which they did.

Here is the conclusion of a recent analysis, with a link to the full article to follow. People can disagree, but the "writing is on the wall", seems to me.

"In summary, I would like to say that DSLRs simply have no way to compete with mirrorless in the future. I am not saying that everyone will be switching to smaller and lighter mirrorless cameras soon – no, we are still far from that point. However, it simply does not make sense for manufacturers like Nikon and Canon to continue investing into making DSLRs better, when the technology advantage is clearly with mirrorless."

https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr

The article covers, I think, all the salient technological points relating to SLR bodies vs. mirrorless bodies now and going forward. It also includes some specific points related to Nikon. It is a long article, but I would recommend reading it and then having a long, unemotional, think about the points raised, to anyone who is sincerely interested in the topic.

I completely agree with the reflex camera is well past its peak. All other reasons, comparisons and arguments aside... it is less expensive to manufacture a mirrorless body.

The problem is: when you think about how Nikon's product development strategy, they did everything possible to protect the FX DSLR product line.

Apparently, now Nikon can't afford to bring a CX mirrorless product line to market.

Nikon decided the DX platform's only purpose was for those who wanted to upgrade for P&S compacts or smart phones. Panasonic, Olympus, and Fujifilm showed the market demographic for cameras with smaller sensor areas was quite different. So Nikon went to CX and we know how that turned out.

So, Nikon protected their DLSR business instead of being a leader and creating change. Fighting change is a loosing proposition.

 

[HHPhoto]

I completely agree with the reflex camera is well past its peak. All other reasons, comparisons and arguments aside... it is less expensive to manufacture a mirrorless body.

Really???
If that would be really the case, why all entry level DSLRs are much cheaper than similar (based on features and capabilities) DSLM cameras?
Are the DSLM manufacturers ripping their customers off?

This "reflex mirror systems are complicated and expensive" is just a total lie, stupid marketing propaganda by DSLM propagandists.
Reflex mirror system is a technology which has been perfectioned over decades by the camera manufacturers.
A fully matured, extremly proven, reliable and robust technology.

The evidence is so clear: Just look at the prices of the latest film SLRs which were produced until 2005-2007:
Canon EOS 3000N (incl. kit lens): 150€
Canon EOS 3000V: 150€
Canon EOS 300V: 190€
Canon EOS 300X: 220€
Canon EOS 33V: 360€
Canon EOS 30V: 450€
Nikon F55: 120€
Nikon F65: 230€
Nikon F75: 160€
Nikon F80: 360€
Minolta Dynax 40: 120€
Minolta Dynax 60: 200€

Cheap as chips. And all with reflex mirror systems!!!
Most of these cameras have been even cheaper than a vertical grip for todays digital cameras.

So fact is:
Reflex mirror systems are not complicated, and not expensive!!

A good reflex mirror systems is much cheaper than a good EVF.

The cost drivers are the sensors, image processors, rear LCD, EVF etc.. The main electronic parts.
Not the mechanical parts like the reflex mirror system.

Cheers, Jan

 

[BillBingham2]

Really???
If that would be really the case, why all entry level DSLRs are much cheaper than similar (based on features and capabilities) DSLM cameras?
Are the DSLM manufacturers ripping their customers off?

Yes, and I think you are a bit biased in your data collection.

There are a number of companies that have no expertise in SLRs or film based cameras that are coming up with mirror-less cameras, not DLSR.

I would submit that DSLRs came to market because the technology for EVF early on was not sufficient to garner any market share. DSLRs were a fine stepping stone in the evolution of digital cameras.

...The evidence is so clear: Just look at the prices of the latest film SLRs which were produced until 2005-2007:
Canon EOS 3000N (incl. kit lens): 150€
Canon EOS 3000V: 150€
Canon EOS 300V: 190€
Canon EOS 300X: 220€
Canon EOS 33V: 360€
Canon EOS 30V: 450€
Nikon F55: 120€
Nikon F65: 230€
Nikon F75: 160€
Nikon F80: 360€
Minolta Dynax 40: 120€
Minolta Dynax 60: 200€

I might suggest that the prices more due to companies trying to chase after any consumer as the market tanks.

...Reflex mirror systems are not complicated, and not expensive!!

Priced out a Nikon D5 recently? My oldest is lusting after a high-end Canon because of the video capability and that system is outrageously expensive (IMHO).

[/U]The cost drivers are the sensors, image processors, rear LCD, EVF etc.. The main electronic parts.
Not the mechanical parts like the reflex mirror system.

Cheers, Jan

You have forgotten some less physical costs that I would suggest may actually be higher. Software development and testing if you are developing from scratch might overshadow much of the hardware in a Mirror-less camera.

Also look to what Leica did for their new SL. Viewfinders in the film based SL line were EXCELLENT, yet they choose a EVF over a prism.

I might suggest your facts don't hold up to even the quickest testing. You do bring up some great points of discussion though.

B2 (;->