The Nikon struggle to Survive Nov 2020

Freakscene said:
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
Click to expand...

Hi Marty,

The story is years old so, it's likely out of date as per your info. I know, the school spent a lot of money on microscopes at the time and then, struggled to get an Electron Microscope for the research lab. Local businesses contributed to the fund, which is unusual.

As for Nikon, i know they make decent instruments. I'm sorry to see them in this situation. Camera Phones certainly killed the small consumer cameras that all Cos made. I guess, Covid is taking a further toll? And, i'm sure, from past stories, poor management caused lots of trouble.

pkr
 
A Russian photographer on Instagram seems to use the D810 and D610 (and the Leica Q-P) and produces some very nice images. Lovely colour, clear and sharp, focus is spot on. I know that it's an erroneous notion to look at the gear that shoots photos you like, but when you see colour and a 'look', the gear does play a part.



https://www.instagram.com/fivealeks/
 
As a follow on from my last post, I think that gear matters a lot, for a number of reasons. Yes, a good photographer can make gear work for them. But I look at my micro four thirds images, compare them with my full frame images, and I know that the m43 sensor just isn't in the same league as a full frame sensor from the last ten years. It just isn't. When I know I need the goods in terms of image quality, I almost always go back to my full frame cameras. And that piques my interest with Nikon, as they use Sony sensors with fantastic dynamic range. Sony and Panasonic use these sensors, too, but Nikon seems to have a handle on colour in a way that I like.
 
I think most camera makers buy the base sensor and then add tweaks to it as well as their own unique processors. The Fujis use Sony sensors I believe but then add their own special sauce with the X-trans array. Nikon has made its own sensors as well as using Toshiba and Sony sensors, others perhaps. I'm not sure but I think Canon continues to make its own sensors.

While the processor/sensor combination influences the final image look, for me the most important aspect of gear is how it feels when using it. If I'm not comfortable with the camera it's an unpleasant experience no matter how good the pictures look. Plus I've owned and used cameras that didn't produce images as well as other cameras I've owned but I used them because they were more comfortable and, therefore, I could use them more effectively and produce better images anyway--if that makes sense to anyone.

Everybody makes good cameras today. And many older cameras continue to be good even when the technology is dated. It's mainly in using what you feel works best for you.
 
HHPhoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nikon absolutely should not be appealing to photographers who prefer an OVF; they be the old folks. Younger people have grown up shooting photos and video from a screen.

Nikon's mirrorless offerings just don't have anything that makes them stand out in the current market.
 
Ste_S said:
Nikon absolutely should not be appealing to photographers who prefer an OVF; they be the old folks. Younger people have grown up shooting photos and video from a screen....
Click to expand...

That's the problem I see with all the recent mirrorless cameras--they're video cameras that have the option to be used to make photographs. Not photography cameras with a video option. Photography is secondary.

Us "old folks" are photographers, not videographers. We need tools for our work as well as the "young folks".
 
Dogman said:
That's the problem I see with all the recent mirrorless cameras--they're video cameras that have the option to be used to make photographs. Not photography cameras with a video option. Photography is secondary.

Us "old folks" are photographers, not videographers. We need tools for our work as well as the "young folks".
Click to expand...

I agree .... must admit that puts me off a lot of the new offerings.
It`s just the feeling that I`m paying for something I neither need or want .
I realise that if they did bring out a stills only camera it would probably be more expensive because it would be a "limited edition " .
It`s a pity .
 
Nikon could do worse than using new tech to reintroduce the F, and F2 with updated metered viewfinders and improved screens, and do so through a Heritage Investment sub-company, just to gage the investment interest in bring back their first Professional, Analog SLRs.

Ask yourself, would you put some dollars, etc into a small branch company that is offering a chance to buy a reboot of such an excellent camera, that is still highly sought?

How much of the making of new units could existing Nikon CNC and Robotics be done to keep prices down, using the same metal construction?

Others may have different favorite Nikon cameras in mind, but from where I sit, a High Quality, Basic Nikon F or F2, with Simple, updated meters would be a camera worth owning, and the sub-company would be worth investing what dollars photographers have to invest in these Wuhan 19 days?

IMO.
 
If you do not wish to spend your 10 sec post processing, use JPEG. Plenty of settings in camera tp make them just what you want. I have done it myself when I did mass projects and did not have even 10 sec per image. The files had to go to processor yesterday.
 
eli griggs said:
Nikon could do worse than using new tech to reintroduce the F, and F2 with updated metered viewfinders and improved screens, and do so through a Heritage Investment sub-company, just to gage the investment interest in bring back their first Professional, Analog SLRs.

Ask yourself, would you put some dollars, etc into a small branch company that is offering a chance to buy a reboot of such an excellent camera, that is still highly sought?

How much of the making of new units could existing Nikon CNC and Robotics be done to keep prices down, using the same metal construction?


IMO.
Click to expand...

Even as an image-maker, your idea would be a great one. But they are mired in mitigating crushing loss and don't appear to have the bandwidth for vision. The annual ritual of mildly refreshing the same lineup got too routine and along the way lost the sense of their own powerful history. It’s unraveling may be financially irreversible at this point. Who knows.

Ronald M said:
When they put me in the mirrorless game, the Nikons go to only special occasions and Leicas go in my every day bag.
Click to expand...

1++
 
No surprise the sales are dwindling as market is already oversaturated with rather advanced digital hardware and everyone and their grandma seems to have a DSLR.
For most of the people the question is no longer "should I drop film/digital comapct and go D/SLR" it's more like "should I drop DX and go FX" or even "should I buy new DSLR every time a new gen comes out"...

Back in the day the choice was simple and made sense.
You really did see a difference in IQ, functionality and ergonomics.

I was more motivated to move up from the old D3000 to D7100 than from D7100 to D750.
With D750 I'm not even planning to buy any new digital cameras in the foreseeable future.

I would, however, per eli.griggs post, buy two revamped Nikon F or F2 bodies.
Assuming these would only have *basic* functionality.
Strange isn't it?
 
jsrockit said:
Well, really back in the day... you had to wait for a new film!
Click to expand...

Yeah but I'd say that this was/is more true for pros, I rather meant average non-pro consumers.
Once you got FE2 or FM2n + Tri-X or Portra (or whatever your preference is) what else would you need?

Same for digital - I think even D7000 is way more than an average amateur photographer would ever need.
 
Nikon probably realizes that the market for S3, SP, F, F2 homage-cameras is a small one consisting of older aged film enthusiasts (like me) who understand and revered those cameras - and who also have discretionary funds to buy them. The large market of 20-40 age buyers mostly never knew or used those cameras, never saw the romance of using them. The youngest group have known only digital cameras as the mainstream offering - even then, photography for them has mostly involved their phone’s camera.

As Thom Hogan wrote maybe as far back as seven years ago, Nikon (and others) have entirely missed the opportunity to offer the connectivity that any smartphone offers (to Instagram, Facebook, messaging, and wireless transfer). Although I and many others have absolutely no need for that, the young buyers might expect it.
 
Pál_K said:
As Thom Hogan wrote maybe as far back as seven years ago, Nikon (and others) have entirely missed the opportunity to offer the connectivity that any smartphone offers (to Instagram, Facebook, messaging, and wireless transfer). Although I and many others have absolutely no need for that, the young buyers might expect it.
Click to expand...

Don't know if it would really have mattered. A DSLR is too large for a daily carry and a phone suffices photographically (still + video) while doubling as your computer. No camera can compete.

The market is indeed saturated with ultra-capable FF & crop DSLRs loaded with more than most users need. But what, I wonder, is Canon's Special Sauce? Why do they flourish while others whither?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
S
"Nikon slams shutter on single-lens reflex cameras"
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Rayt
Rayt
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
BURNING FILM! The Nikon vs. Canon Motor Drive Wars, Part 1
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
1936ContaxII
1936ContaxII
J
  • Article Article
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
Tincup
T
Back
Top Bottom