Tim Murphy
Well-known
Everyone is missing the point it appears
Everyone is missing the point it appears
Having 100 percent market share means nothing when the market is in deep decline.
I realize that this is a message board full of photographers, and as such we have deep passions about our hobby, and in many cases our passion, and even livelihood.
But that doesn't matter one whit when people aren't buying the products we fancy and no amount of hand wringing will change that.
Now if only Nikon would parlay their imaging technology with a video game console. They'd be walking in tall cotton.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
Everyone is missing the point it appears
Having 100 percent market share means nothing when the market is in deep decline.
I realize that this is a message board full of photographers, and as such we have deep passions about our hobby, and in many cases our passion, and even livelihood.
But that doesn't matter one whit when people aren't buying the products we fancy and no amount of hand wringing will change that.
Now if only Nikon would parlay their imaging technology with a video game console. They'd be walking in tall cotton.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
Really all we are talking about are current tech creation fetishes. There will always be imaging.
michaelwj
----------------
They already make one (well I believe Cosina actually makes it) http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/film-cameras/fm10.html
But really, how many cameras would you expect them to sell to educational facilities? And then how many the second year? Hardly any. The problem is that although the K1000 (and similar) are aging, they are as you say reliable, so the number of new items required to "top up" the supply is tiny.
A new film camera isn't going to make money for anyone who sells them at a "reasonable" price. How much would you pay for an F2 reissue? Used they're about $200, a reissue would be over $2000 I'd think, and to make money, closer to $3000. No one is going to buy that apart from a few hardened Nikon fans. At $1000 I'd think about it, but Nikon would lose a lot of money. I'd bet they'd sell far less of them than Leica sells M-As, as a "new" F2 would have to either be limited to AI-S lenses, or include so much electronics to use all the modern lenses that it would no longer be an F2, but an F7. The M-A has the same lens compatibility as the M10, as modern as it gets and can be shot alongside an M10 with no real handling/compatibility issues.
Back on topic. I believe Nikon has to save itself. Thom Hogan has a recent article where he outlines his strategy, which I agree with more or less:
-Keep Full Frame digital trucking along.
-Fill out the DX lenses - I'd probably still be shooting with one if they made a semi compact 24/1.8 DX lens to get an equivalent 35mm lens on DX. Add in 18mm and 16mm DX primes and we're there.
-Actually ship some version of the DLs. Add in a waterproof one - I'd get a waterproof/underwater 18-50 DL, it would be great.
-Kill everything else
-Make smartphone lenses to replace Coolpix.
Mirrorless alone isn't going to save them, it's just another late entry to a contracting market. It worked great with the KeyMission... They need to shore up their core business - advanced amateur photographers. The company would be smaller, but would survive.
Anyway, I doubt I'm adding anything new, and I don't have any real interest apart form that it would be a bit sad if such a historic company went under.
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Really, nothing is ever obsolete?
Really, nothing is ever obsolete?
So said XEROX
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Really, nothing is ever obsolete?
So said XEROX
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Other Japanese camera makers seem to be profitable (Sony, Fuji, perhaps Ricoh)
so it would seem with the right products via the right management decisions
Nikon could be profitable once again too.
I wonder how it will take Nikon to get a competitive high end mirrorless camera as well as other profitable new products to market.
but then again, all it would take is substantial sale discounts to generate needed cash on existing products.
so it would seem with the right products via the right management decisions
Nikon could be profitable once again too.
I wonder how it will take Nikon to get a competitive high end mirrorless camera as well as other profitable new products to market.
but then again, all it would take is substantial sale discounts to generate needed cash on existing products.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Thanks, Stephen, for adding that last category.
My other thought is they could always redesign the Df by removing most of the buttons, and reducing the rear LCD into nothing more than a control panel.
And I'll agree that they should expand the prime choices in DX lenses. Was looking for a 50mm, and couldn't find one, except a seriously mislabeled auction item from Bulgaria.
PF
My other thought is they could always redesign the Df by removing most of the buttons, and reducing the rear LCD into nothing more than a control panel.
And I'll agree that they should expand the prime choices in DX lenses. Was looking for a 50mm, and couldn't find one, except a seriously mislabeled auction item from Bulgaria.
PF
michaelwj
----------------
Are their camera divisions profitable?
I doubt it.
Sony makes money from sensors, most of which don't go into consumer cameras. (I remember an article several years ago in Bloomberg where the outgoing COE of Sony said the only profitable part of the business was the employees life insurance - they were essentially a life insurance company that lost money selling TVs).
Fuji makes money from its chemical division, perhaps the instant film makes a little money, but I'm not sure it would be enough to offset the other camera areas.
Ricoh? Highly unlikely.
I don't think any camera company makes money from consumer goods except Leica and maybe Canon, and historically Nikon. For all the rest, making cameras is a hobby that is allowed to continue either because the company sees some benefit to other divisions (through either brand recognition or R&D overlap) or they are trying to save face and not admit they've failed. There just isn't the volume anymore to sustain the immense amount of development and infrastructure that making a digital camera requires. Soon the only manufactures left will be small niche players. Recently Leica has been the only small niche manufacture, but very soon the pro (and prosumer) DSLR will also be a niche product, and consumer DSLRs (D3000 series) won't exist. Smartphones will take every advantage they had and turn it into software within the next 10 years. The only advantage a dedicated camera will have is direct physical tactile buttons (shutter) and dials (zoom, manual focus, and aperture).
BillBingham2
Registered User
Yes, they do matter. As the turbulence of life continues to accelerate nothing is immune to changes, brand name too. Market Cap is a wonderful measure. Can you please explain the correlation between that and Brand Names? I'd like to understand.
Nikon didn't exit stage right as some markets start to collapse. Lots of companies do it, hanging on too long too deep is very easy to do. It feels safe, it reaffirms your right decision to get to where you are.
Canon has tentacles in markets, far more diverse than Nikon (e.g. copiers), so it's hard to make an informed decision without diving into both side a bit deeper.
B2 (;->
BillBingham2
Registered User
They have most of the parts already done.
They have a stable of great glass in production and years of wonderful F mount lenses that could be leveraged.
There's a bit of UI that needs to be developed with respect to EVFs. This is where the camera will either be a wild success or massive failure. They need to focus on speed of use for manual controls, simplicity for the basics, get the damn cameras linked to an iPhone app to set controls. Have settings saved in the iPhone that are quick to call up.
They have such a strong stable of flash technology and such that would be built into EVERY camera. Imagine the Coolpix A that could control a flash setup the same way as a D5 can? Again, use an iPhone to control this sort of thing. What a wonderful way to lock users into the Nikon family better.
Figure out a somewhat different design to leverage the depth of the F mount. Don't just stick the lens way out there on a tube by itself, looks matter. Is there a reason we need to keep the left side of the camera sticking out as there is no more 35mm cassette to put in there?
Perhaps make a set of lenses that paint the way the old glass from the 1950's did and sell them as Artistic.
Anyone else have any ideas?
B2 (;->
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Michael, while Fuji's chemical, aka film and Instax divisions do i deed make more momey than the digital cameras, the Fuji X system is profitable.
michaelwj
----------------
Thanks for the info!
I will add that their chemical business extends far beyond film. So much so that I believe they are not reliant on photography at all to be profitable.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi,
there has been data published by Fuji Europe some months ago:
Fujifilm is producing standard films, instant films, instant cameras, archival films, RA-4 silver-halide photo paper, BW photo paper, photo chemistry, lab equipment, photo books. And they are running several huge industrial-scale mass volume photo labs in several countries.
They are making more than 2 billion $ (!) with that business.
And that business is increasing.
With their digital segment (cameras) they are making less than 900 million $, and that business is decreasing (mainly due to the collapse of the compact camera sales).
Cheers, Jan
there has been data published by Fuji Europe some months ago:
Fujifilm is producing standard films, instant films, instant cameras, archival films, RA-4 silver-halide photo paper, BW photo paper, photo chemistry, lab equipment, photo books. And they are running several huge industrial-scale mass volume photo labs in several countries.
They are making more than 2 billion $ (!) with that business.
And that business is increasing.
With their digital segment (cameras) they are making less than 900 million $, and that business is decreasing (mainly due to the collapse of the compact camera sales).
Cheers, Jan
Exactly... I can't believe people think that because digital cameras are not selling like they used to, they are going to disappear. Computers are still sold even though they aren't selling like they used to.
How much of that is due to Instax? I bet a lot. You keep trying to make an argument for the film business as a whole by riding on Instax's coattails. That's not fair.
willie_901
Veteran
Nikon will slowly down-size until they find the proper resource balance for their marketing strategy (FX DSLR is King). Nikon makes well-engineered products. The extant F-mount lenses alone will make FX DSLRs attractive to many.
It will survive but it I believe it will be a very different company in terms of size and product diversity.
It will survive but it I believe it will be a very different company in terms of size and product diversity.
willie_901
Veteran
Nikon does have face significant financial challenges. This is different because they did not recovered from 2009. They have steadily lost market share in practically all still-camera market segments.
Since 2009 the market changed. Nikon did not.
Since 2009 the market changed. Nikon did not.
Dogman
Veteran
Nikon built its reputation with two cameras in the line--the Nikon F and Nikkormat. How many models does it make today, including compacts? It costs a lot of money to try to manufacture products that appeal to all people.
HHPhoto
Well-known
You're wrong.
In the published data it was clear that Instax is less than 1/3 of that whole silver halide business.
Cheers, Jan
nikonhswebmaster
reluctant moderator
So said XEROX
Regards,
Tim Murphy
They still have a larger market cap than Nikon. And we still make copies, and store data, and XEROX gave us the personal computer as we know it today.
Imaging persists, and always will. My guess is some artist will conjure up film for a project 1000 years from now.
But interchangeable lens cameras full of dust, that vibrate when they turn on, not so much. Personally I hate 'em.
nasmformyzombie
Registered
I do believe that in the longer term Nikon must be absorbed by a larger and more diversified company to survive. Xiaomi or Apple are certainly possibilities. The question is would Xiaomi or Apple be interested?