Severe crisis at Nikon

If I remember correctly, Nikon lost money on every one of those S3 and SP remakes. If they try that again in their current condition, they'll bleed to death.
 
Robert Lai said:
If I remember correctly, Nikon lost money on every one of those S3 and SP remakes. If they try that again in their current condition, they'll bleed to death.
Click to expand...

They should have made digital versions of both primo S rangefinder cameras along with the old timey film reissues.

Even out dated APS sensor versions of the Nikon RF cameras would be highly sought after 15 years later.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
I thought this was a great comment (from dpreview today. Thanks "ttran88"):

"Nikon killed the DLs to protect Nikon 1 sales. Like how they won't release a a big sensor mirrorless to protect their dslr sales. Or how they won't release more APSC lenses like the great DX 35mm f1.8 to protect their FX sales. They probably won't make their video on dslrs better either to protect their Key Mission sales. Good job Nikon!!!"
Click to expand...

Interesting, and that's the same reason Fuji won't make a FF. 😉

You have to wonder how they can miss the obvious, though, which is the direction and opportunities in their real market.

Sony has actually saved themselves with the huge margins on A7 related products, but their lack of still photography experience and poor choices in filter stacks and lens manufacture have stolen a serious portion of the bloom.

What would Nikon's pros really appreciate? Less hernias. :bang:

But Nikon is apparently hostage to Sony in the sensor department, like Fuji, and perhaps that is giving both pause to produce a new lighter FF system.

Still only Canon and Nikon are in the value-added position of having legions of pros invested in their lenses. What they have missed so far, is that it's not hard to leverage that with EVIL bodies, and gradually offer smaller lighter pro-level glass to go on them.

Sony seems to have everyone convinced that EVIL lenses must be the size of DSLR lenses for equal performance. If you insist on covering your sensor with 2.6mm of glass, it may be true.

But a nice little .8mm of IR placed within your base coverglass, and nothing else, will allow the steeper ray angles smaller lenses would need, and will handle the legacy glass easily via adapters.

It's the only logical way to give shooters a tangible reason to spend. 🙂
 
lawrence said:
Whenever I walk into any kind of tourist area and look at what people are carrying, phones aside it's all prosumer SLRs, nearly always Nikon or Canon.
Click to expand...

My experience as well, Lawrence.

In the past five years, traveling fairly extensively, I've seen:

A Fuji X 100 in Asheville, NC
A Fuji X 100 somewhere on the streets of London
A Fuji X 100s at the V&A museum, London
A Fuji X Pro 1 in Cornwall

\Dozens upon dozens Nikon and Canon low end dSLRs.

I have had two people approach me upon seeing my Fuji mirrorless:
One asked me how many spare batteries I used with my X100s
The Pro 1 user asked about my Pro 2
 
Just to reiterate the truth here:

The losses come from the semiconductor and lithography business.

The photo industry losses are in line with the current decline we're seeing across all brands.

This restructuring is great news, as it's been needed at Nikon for a long time.

A mirrorless camera to compete with overpriced Fuji APS-C cams would not have stopped this...because they are NOT SEMICONDUCTORS OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LITHOGRAPHY!

Most importantly, I just bought, and registered, a brand new Nikon F6.
 
lawrence said:
Whenever I walk into any kind of tourist area and look at what people are carrying, phones aside it's all prosumer SLRs, nearly always Nikon or Canon. Generally there's not a Fuji or Olympus mirrorless in sight because brand recognition is so important in this market. If Nikon simply concentrated on the prosumer and pro I think they'd do OK, although at some point they need to come up with is a mirrorless that can take F mount lenses. Everything else they do photography-wise should be dumped.
Click to expand...

Agreed Lawrence. I don't remember the last time I saw a "holiday maker" shooting anything other than a Canon or Nikon DSLR, usually the cheapest one with the kit lens. But even those are swamped by smartphone users.

fdarnell said:
Interesting story. Here's the fundamental, unavoidable, irreversible facts:

1. The number of people that appreciate the performance of a high quality DSLR or mirrorless is declining and doing so rapidly.

2. The number of people that want one device to text, email, post to social media and keep them connected and make wonderful selfies and food pics to show their friends is growing at an exponential rate.

3. The population of #2 is not well suited to the rigors of detailed, thorough problem-solving skills need to compete successfully in modern manufacturing. Problem solving, data analysis, fact-finding and critical thought are ideas from another universe to them.

4. It's too late to enter the smartphone business, mirrorless business or any format of camera business of any kind in the digital realm.

Therefore:

Given #3 & #4, Nikon should dump the camera division ASAP as it is still profitable and move to building the automatic measuring systems business, since the population of #2 will not be able to provide the skills to keep their ever-increasing demand for instant social approval gratification technology satisfied for their astronomically growing masses. Nikon has a good marketing force for the industrial imaging division and adding this kind of product to its mix will give them a "full cart" to sell from.

This manufacturing should not take place in the United States.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your "facts" #1 and #2, and so propose some "alternate facts" 🙂

#1. The market for the "pro" camera has ALWAYS been tiny compared to the consumer market.

#2. People have ALWAYS wanted to share their photos immediately. People haven't changed, only the technology that we use to get the job done. Any new technology that can make it easier to quickly share photos with good enough quality will see an exponential growth, then a plateau, then it will fall as the next technology moves in.
 
splitimageview said:
The 6500 didn't replace the 6300. They are both current models.
Click to expand...

So is the M10 and M240.
But when Leica introduced the M10, it priced it the same as the M240, and reduced the M240's price.

That's what Sony used to do with its A6XXX series. Until the 6500 came out.
Fuji and Olympus did the same thing with their latest offerings - XT2/Xpro2 and OMD EM 1.

They can't afford to sell 'cheap' cameras anymore, and no-one wants to buy them.
 
HHPhoto said:
Willie, the DSLR market is not a niche.
Concerning unit sales, it is the second biggest segment behind digital compact cameras.
And concerning value/revenue, it even is by far the biggest segment.
Just look at the data:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Of course you have to consider the entire market.

A very small percentage of all the still digital photographs made every day are made with DSLRs. The gross revenues and profits from DSLR bodies, lenses and accessories are a tiny fraction of the total market. Of course practically all of the new, still-camera market sales come from smart phones. A 12 to 16 MP camera is still a camera even if it is in a smart phone. People use their smart phones as they previously dedicated still cameras.

Here's a fact. Most people are completely content using a 12 MP smart phone still camera. By comparison those who need a dedicated still camera are a niche.

When discussing economics, ignoring the smart phone market is incomplete and misleading. Just ask Nikon.
 
willie_901 said:
Yes it is. Of course you have to consider the entire market.

A very small percentage of all the still digital photographs made every day are made with DSLRs. The gross revenues and profits from DSLR bodies, lenses and accessories are a tiny fraction of the total market. Of course practically all of the new, still-camera market sales come from smart phones. A 12 to 16 MP camera is still a camera even if it is in a smart phone. People use their smart phones as they previously dedicated still cameras.

Here's a fact. Most people are completely content using a 12 MP smart phone still camera. By comparison those who need a dedicated still camera are a niche.

When discussing economics, ignoring the smart phone market is incomplete and misleading. Just ask Nikon.
Click to expand...

That is right on the one hand.
But completely misleading on the other hand: Because all camera manufacturers are not (significantly) involved in the smart phone market. They are affected by it, but they are not players in it.
So their market is just the camera market.

Neither Canon nor Nikon nor anyone else from the camera manufacturers could kick Samsung, Apple etc. out of the smartphone market.
It is just a different universum. Camera manufacturers have to accept that reality.

And smartphone users consider their smartphone as a multi-purpose tool: Internet, telephone, chatting, clock, calendar, and the integrated camera is a bonus. But they don't buy it mainly because they want a camera.

Cheers, Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bmattock
FID Warning...Kodak cuts jobs, triples CEO pay, Lucky isn't, silver up...etc.
Replies
2
Views
2K
VinceC
V
Back
Top Bottom