The Nikon struggle to Survive Nov 2020

[HHPhoto]

Keep calm, carry on.
Nikon managed lots of crisis in their past. Just remember the period from 1989 to 2005, when Canon became market leader in the professional camera segment with their new EOS line and the lenses with build-in ultrasonic motors. Critics declared Nikon dead at that time.
But Nikon came back strongly with the F5 and AF-S lenses (and before that with the F90 and the best flash system).

Or look at the period from 2002 to 2007, when Canon already had several full frame cameras, but Nikon only APS-C cameras. Critics declared Nikon dead again.
And then Nikon fighted back impressively with the D3 and D700.

Nikon is doing one very important thing exactly right: They explained "we will offer the best of both worlds" - DSLRs and DSLMs. That is the best strategy, as lots of photographers prefer optical viewfinders and the DSLR technique, and don't want to be forced to spend thousands of bucks for a new system which is worse for their individual needs.
To serve a broad amount of customers, both EVF and OVF lovers, is a huge competitive advantage.

 

[huddy]

Nikon is an optics company at its best in making no compromise products beloved by professionals and amateurs. I love their ergonomics and glass. My D700 and FE2 paired with both modern and AI lenses are superbly capable tools. A D810/D850 or possibly a Z6//Z6ii will be in my future and I look forward to adding more medium to long lenses in time also. I hope they will be around for a long time in spite of their terrible marketing that isn't very good at addressing/capturing western markets (or most others) for that matter.

I still do wish the DL series hadn't been canceled. Either the 24-50 or 24-85 version would have made superb portable bodies beloved like the X100 and Ricoh Gr series.

 

[HHPhoto]

Lots of new products coming from Nikon next year.
Including two (!!) new DSLRs and several new F mount lenses. Exciting news.

Nikon is absolutely right to offer excellent cameras and lenses for both DSLR and mirrorless users. By this strategy they benefit best by having access to the broadest user base, including their huge F mount user base (which is probably 95% of their total user base, as they have just recently entered the mirrorless market).

https://nikonrumors.com/2020/11/24/...d-several-f-mount-lenses-coming-in-2021.aspx/


Cheers, Jan

 

[Out to Lunch]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Cheers, OtL

 

[Mackinaw]

Nikon in "Dire Straits" the headline of this PetaPixel article. Read and draw your own conclusions:

https://petapixel.com/2020/11/23/nikon-in-dire-straits-as-its-slump-is-particularly-untimely-report/

 

[Stuart John]

Trouble with Nikon offering new DSLRs makes many of the gear heads think that Nikon is not fully committed mirrorless. They also somehow thing that is is something being taken away from the mirrorless development. The idea that a company could make both types of cameras is beyond many.
Those PetaPixel articles actually don't help. There is a lot of negativity towards Nikon of late. Personal I don't get why. Their DSLRs have been great. The Z6 and Z7 series are shaping up quite nicely. The lenses are some of the best Nikon has ever made. The new 50mm F1.8S is one of the best 50mm lenses around. If it was a Leica or Zeiss it would be around 2000euro instead of 550 euro. The new Zooms for the system are great.

 

[hap]

If adventurous, media spread Nikon death knell......Go long Nikon.

 

[Guth]

My question: In this case is Nikon the canary in the coalmine? It is not all that hard for me to imagine none of the major camera manufacturers continuing to exist ten years down the road from now. This isn't a vision that I'm particularly fond of, but it is not unfathomable to me.

For what it's worth, Hotcakes are still popular here in Portland. (Perhaps an ominous reference knowing just how screwed up Portland is these days.)

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Interesting points in this thread. Generally, I am a "trailing edge" technology adopter in photography. By this I mean that I don't see the advantages--and haven't in a while--to buying the latest and greatest gear. So I buy used 3-5 years (or more) after a product is introduced. My reason for this is that my photographic resolution and speed requirements were achieved industry-wide around ten years ago. Most upgrades since then have been, as they say, surplus to requirements. If you all recall, in the last century camera product cycles for premium gear were measured in decades (Canon F1, Nikon F3, Leica M6). Now that same cycle is measured in months, and it has hurt all of these companies one way or another. In my case, as long as I can find good used examples of, say, a Nikon 810 that produce more than I need, Nikon is unlikely to see any more of my money, Where are these used models coming from? Why Nikon shooters who have upgraded, mostly. So maybe you could say I am part of the funding stream for early adopters. 🙂

Nevertheless, I am going to make an exception to this for some version of the Nikon Z7 and my traditional three-lens suite for the same. I feel like the resolution leap from my D3 to the Z7 is worth a new investment (or expense, if you prefer). And I like the idea of being able to use some of the Nikon lenses that I have on the new bodies. So my main hope is that Nikon hangs around in the camera business long enough for me to make that change.

And I see that some of you didn't like the Nikon Df. That's fine -- to each his own. I see on the 'bay that prices are hovering in the US$1200 range for pretty clean examples. But when the prices dip reliably into the $800 range on those bodies, I will add one to my cabinet. The 810 too. I always liked the look of them.

 

[Ricoh]

Nikon won’t be benefitting from my recent purchase, but I’ve just got myself a lovely FM3a. 🙂

 

[zuiko85]

Interesting points in this thread. Generally, I am a "trailing edge" technology adopter in photography. By this I mean that I don't see the advantages--and haven't in a while--to buying the latest and greatest gear. So I buy used 3-5 years (or more) after a product is introduced. My reason for this is that my photographic resolution and speed requirements were achieved industry-wide around ten years ago. Most upgrades since then have been, as they say, surplus to requirements. If you all recall, in the last century camera product cycles for premium gear were measured in decades (Canon F1, Nikon F3, Leica M6). Now that same cycle is measured in months, and it has hurt all of these companies one way or another. In my case, as long as I can find good used examples of, say, a Nikon 810 that produce more than I need, Nikon is unlikely to see any more of my money, Where are these used models coming from? Why Nikon shooters who have upgraded, mostly. So maybe you could say I am part of the funding stream for early adopters. 🙂

Nevertheless, I am going to make an exception to this for some version of the Nikon Z7 and my traditional three-lens suite for the same. I feel like the resolution leap from my D3 to the Z7 is worth a new investment (or expense, if you prefer). And I like the idea of being able to use some of the Nikon lenses that I have on the new bodies. So my main hope is that Nikon hangs around in the camera business long enough for me to make that change.

And I see that some of you didn't like the Nikon Df. That's fine -- to each his own. I see on the 'bay that prices are hovering in the US$1200 range for pretty clean examples. But when the prices dip reliably into the $800 range on those bodies, I will add one to my cabinet. The 810 too. I always liked the look of them.

Buying used does help whatever company you have chosen as your platform. What I mean is that a healthy used market allows the early adopters a place to raise money to upgrade.
Of course rapid technological change has damaged this arrangement to some extent, as seen in the last 15-20 years.
While there were and still continue to be ‘classic’ film cameras.....
There are almost no classic digital cameras. And I mean classic in the sense that is reflected in a steady, or even increasing used market value, not in the idea of a fond remembrance.

 

[Ronald M]

In the Nikon F mount cameras that use the AI indexing, mounting a non-AI lens places undue pressure on the AI indexing prong and often bends it or breaks it off. The D800 has an AI indexing tab. Even in manual focus SLRs, most that use the AI tab cannot use non-AI lenses. The ones that can have a complicated, fragile folding AI indexing prong. The only dSLR with this, as far as I know, is the Df.

The focus screen of modern (AF) SLR cameras are bundles of fibre optics with microlenses on the surfaces - they accept light from a very narrow angle, so as you open the lens wider they transmit proportionally less light. Randomly scattering ground glass or plastic is much better for manual focusing, which is why proper manual focus cameras are better for focusing manually, but objectively, screens in the AF cameras look brighter.

Marty

Never understood why, I just know I can not manual focus with precision on dslr. Now I know it is not me. Thank you.

Live view manual work well, but is not practical for general photography. The split image replacement screens were not what I hoped for. My F2 screens are the best except for Leica R4,5,6,&7. Can you imagine the machine precision Nikon had to take this possible? Turn camera over, drop old screen and insert new.

That gives me an idea. I have a box full that may fit
FX cameras. Some screen height adjustment may be required.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

While there were and still continue to be ‘classic’ film cameras.....
There are almost no classic digital cameras. And I mean classic in the sense that is reflected in a steady, or even increasing used market value, not in the idea of a fond remembrance.

You can say that again. The Nikon D100 is selling for $27 at KEH. Quite a capable camera. Yup, twenty-seven bucks. Basically free + shipping. Here's what mine can do (same sensor as the old Epson RD-1):

Quite cabable, but not as much dynamic range as a "modern" sensor.

Never understood why, I just know I can not manual focus with precision on dslr. Now I know it is not me. Thank you.

I think the reason is that dslr's contrast detection focus works against your eye's ability to really pick out the point of focus in your viewfinder. These were available in the old SLR's of course, but folks hardly ever chose them. Much more popular, and more useful, focusing screens had a central split image or a diamond pattern collar surrounding a split image. Made manual focusing a snap. I had a similar experience replacing a Rollei focusing screen with a parafin-sandwich type. Very contrasty compared to the original fresnel, but oddly hard to focus unless the Rollei's image magnifier was used at the same time.

 

[Dogman]

You can say that again. The Nikon D100 is selling for $27 at KEH. Quite a capable camera. Yup, twenty-seven bucks. Basically free + shipping.

Quite cabable, but not as much dynamic range as a "modern" sensor.

I recently bought a D2X for the princely sum of $86.14 at KEH. It didn't come with a battery or charger which is no problem for me since I already have several batteries and chargers that will work for the camera. Took possession and was amazed that it showed only minor use although the shutter data indicates it has over 80,000 actuations. No big deal, it's a 150,000-200,000 shutter and I only plan to use it as a backup to another D2X, also a recent bargain purchase.

The only downsides to these older cameras is the limited ISO range and the rear screen which is tiny and terrible for image reviews. Oddly enough, the colors coming out of the D2X is some of the nicest I've ever seen including recent models of Nikon and Fujifilm cameras.

I'm becoming an early digital Nikon collector. Why not. They all produce excellent files within their limitations and I can work with those limitations.

 

[maddoc]

Good question. I don't know about board structures but circuit boards and silicon wafer require different technologies. High precision stages that operate in nanometer precision are for example made by RENISHAW for various optical applications like interferometer, spectrometer etc. They are a British company and also fabricate robots for medical use. I think that Olympus is very good in the medical market with endoscopes etc. The German Zeiss company is also strong in research-related equipment like transmission electron microscopes and similar. Nikon could have been in a better position now.

Doc,

Thinking of precision..

I'm just wondering, Pick and Place robots working with really small SMD's have to be really high precision for the newer tech. A 304 pin QFP's placement is critical. I'm sure, the newer tech requires even higher precision.

Does putting more stuff into an IC mean a change in the PC board architecture ?

I understand that (maybe wrong?) the robots for high precision P&P, while designed in the States, don't live here. They are all in Taiwan, according to a friend who designs robots.

Who's building the Robots for the newer tech and, are they in EU? Or, has board density reached a limit?

(I'm just thinking about solder bridges and Tin Whiskers?)

Edit, I had some time to poke around..

A14 is being made in Taiwan by TSMC.

Snip
TSMC is the first foundry to provide 7 and 5 nanometer production capabilities with the latter being applied on the new Apple A14 SoC, and the first to commercialize Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography technology in high volume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC

 

[PKR]

Good question. I don't know about board structures but circuit boards and silicon wafer require different technologies. High precision stages that operate in nanometer precision are for example made by RENISHAW for various optical applications like interferometer, spectrometer etc. They are a British company and also fabricate robots for medical use. I think that Olympus is very good in the medical market with endoscopes etc. The German Zeiss company is also strong in research-related equipment like transmission electron microscopes and similar. Nikon could have been in a better position now.

Yep, while i don't know a lot about microscopes, other than the inspection Stereo Zooms, a relative is a Bio Prof and Dept Head. He told me, he will only buy East German Zelss because, with the Objectives on all others, during immersion viewing, the cement bonding the optics will dissolve. He liked Olympus Microscopes for student use but, Zeiss must be used with anything critical.. ie, research lab use. He finally got funding for East German Zeiss in all the labs. It took a few years of saving funds and collecting grant money.

I had no idea of the problem and, wonder why the other optics vendors (Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss West G, et.) didn't address the issue?

East German Zeiss must have the secret "Coca-Cola" like formula for lens cement ?

 

[Stuart John]

I recently bought a D2X for the princely sum of $86.14 at KEH. It didn't come with a battery or charger which is no problem for me since I already have several batteries and chargers that will work for the camera. Took possession and was amazed that it showed only minor use although the shutter data indicates it has over 80,000 actuations. No big deal, it's a 150,000-200,000 shutter and I only plan to use it as a backup to another D2X, also a recent bargain purchase.

The only downsides to these older cameras is the limited ISO range and the rear screen which is tiny and terrible for image reviews. Oddly enough, the colors coming out of the D2X is some of the nicest I've ever seen including recent models of Nikon and Fujifilm cameras.

I'm becoming an early digital Nikon collector. Why not. They all produce excellent files within their limitations and I can work with those limitations.

The D2X was praised for it's great colors, even more so once photographers started using newer cameras. I don't know what changed. I remember not being impress with the colors from the D300 and D700 after using a D80 for years. The D80 and D200 had great colors I think.

 

[zuiko85]

You can say that again. The Nikon D100 is selling for $27 at KEH. Quite a capable camera. Yup, twenty-seven bucks. Basically free + shipping. Here's what mine can do (same sensor as the old Epson RD-1):

Quite cabable, but not as much dynamic range as a "modern" sensor.



I think the reason is that dslr's contrast detection focus works against your eye's ability to really pick out the point of focus in your viewfinder. These were available in the old SLR's of course, but folks hardly ever chose them. Much more popular, and more useful, focusing screens had a central split image or a diamond pattern collar surrounding a split image. Made manual focusing a snap. I had a similar experience replacing a Rollei focusing screen with a parafin-sandwich type. Very contrasty compared to the original fresnel, but oddly hard to focus unless the Rollei's image magnifier was used at the same time.

Wow, well I guess that shouldn’t be surprising. Our own Godfrey turns out quite nice pictures with a 5 mp Olympus E1.
In a way it’s nice that they aren’t worth selling, basically as you said they are free, so why not. Perhaps even easier to get a film look, if that is a persons interest.

 

[Archiver]

Before the pandemic, I would order the McDonald's hotcakes, eggs, and sausage breakfast.

Dreaming now... warmth... soft hot fluffy pancakes with melted butter... a pristine FM3a with a beautiful lens and coated glass... Kodak Plus X...

In Australia, we have a pancake chain restaurant called The Pancake Parlour. Their food is decent and midpriced. But McDonalds hot cakes are nicer, IMO. My partner often orders the hot cakes at McDonalds while I have the bacon and egg McMuffin and hash brown. I'm a simple guy when it comes to food, I reserve esoteric interest for cameras and watches.

As for Nikon, they are going all in with the Z mount system. Lots of lenses on the horizon, and a fair marketing push for the cameras. The Z6 intrigues me a lot for the native primes and reasonable compatibility with M mount lenses.

I've been tempted to get a good condition D700 or D750 plus the 35/1.4 G and 85G for action and portraits. Nikon digital does seem to create very pleasing colour, and I like how their lenses render. But that's yet another system/mount to deal with, which would likely drive me nuts.

 

[Freakscene]

Yep, while i don't know a lot about microscopes, other than the inspection Stereo Zooms, a relative is a Bio Prof and Dept Head. He told me, he will only buy East German Zelss because, with the Objectives on all others, during immersion viewing, the cement bonding the optics will dissolve. He liked Olympus Microscopes for student use but, Zeiss must be used with anything critical.. ie, research lab use. He finally got funding for East German Zeiss in all the labs. It took a few years of saving funds and collecting grant money.

I had no idea of the problem and, wonder why the other optics vendors (Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss West G, et.) didn't address the issue?

East German Zeiss must have the secret "Coca-Cola" like formula for lens cement ?

There has not been separate East (Jena) and West (Oberkochen) German Zeiss entities since the early 1990s. It is all Carl Zeiss AG now.

I have Zeiss, Leica (Microsystems, different company to Leica Camera) and Nikon Microscopes in my labs. All microscope lenses need cleaning after immersion use because the oil dries, and as it does so, it traps dust that compromises image quality and causes optical problems such as uneven image illuminance, and long term, fog. Dried oil can deteriorate the objective lens over time, but it mainly affects coatings and does not dissolve cements. Zeiss T* coatings are definitely the best, but ALL microscope manufacturers recommend cleaning the immersion oil off your objectives immediately after use. The oil is still wet then, and is easy to remove.

Nikon, Olympus and other companies have no particular problem in that area. I have a Zeiss (West Germany) Photomicroscope III at home whose lenses were made in the mid 1970s and has been used weekly with immersion oil for at least 30 years. Lenses are still great. Keep them clean, get it serviced, no problem, same as any other optical instrument.

Marty