p.2 #1 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
So...don't compete with mirrorless as Sony ( full frame ) and Fuji ( aps ) have that market. Don't compete with high end P&S as the X100 and Sony RX1rxx have that market. Don't compete with Canon DSLR as they have over 50% of that market.
Where or where does that leave Nikon? Outside looking in?
Quite the opposite, but do it in a slower cycle. Companies like Nikon or Canon, do not have unlimited resources and worse still in a diminishing market. Be very mindful of new products that are being introduced. We do not need many, but well thought and targeted. It is like because Sony has the RX1rII, does not mean Canon and Nikon have to compete. It is a small market for virtually no ROI. This will ensure the continued success of the RX1rII. Similarly with Leica M bodies and lenses. This is the realm of Leica and virtually prohibitive for any manufacturer to compete within.
Nikon has great DSLR's, the D810/D750 now couple years old are still superb. Of course we want the latest and greatest but we have virtually reached the threshold of IQ that is possible. The D500 is superb body and in Australia is sought after by many action photographers in combo with 200-500. DSLR's will continue to reduce in size and weight so the differentiation between mirrorless and optimized DSLR's will become a lot more blurred. As a photographer, often the DSLR is still the best choice and both Canon and Nikon are excellent choices here. Many photographers now have both DSLR and Mirrorless. We already have way too many choices
p.2 #2 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
charles.K wrote:
Quite the opposite, but do it in a slower cycle. Companies like Nikon or Canon, do not have unlimited resources and worse still in a diminishing market. Be very mindful of new products that are being introduced. We do not need many, but well thought and targeted. It is like because Sony has the RX1rII, does not mean Canon and Nikon have to compete. It is a small market for virtually no ROI. This will ensure the continued success of the RX1rII. Similarly with Leica M bodies and lenses. This is the realm of Leica and virtually prohibitive for any manufacturer to compete within.
Nikon has great DSLR's, the D810/D750 now couple years old are still superb. Of course we want the latest and greatest but we have virtually reached the threshold of IQ that is possible. The D500 is superb body and in Australia is sought after by many action photographers in combo with 200-500. DSLR's will continue to reduce in size and weight so the differentiation between mirrorless and optimized DSLR's will become a lot more blurred. As a photographer, often the DSLR is still the best choice and both Canon and Nikon are excellent choices here. Many photographers now have both DSLR and Mirrorless. We already have way too many choices ...Show more →
But Nikon has been losing market share every year for the last 5 years at least. Their latest estimate is they have 27% of the interchangable lens camera market and have been taken over by Sigma as no. 2 in lens sales. Does Nikon continue down this downward path of focusing on the DSLR market or wade into the mirrorless market where they are at least 5 years behind.
I once worked for a great owner that said you are either in the top two in a given market or you are nobody. I believe this is true in many markets...especially consumer markets. Where does this leave Nikon...no 2 in the shrinking DSLR market...and not even that if you take lenses into account.
I'm nor arguing with your assessment, just doing an honest analysis of where Nikon can go from here.
p.2 #3 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Todd Warnke wrote:
So, Nikon's retreat to re-think their role is wonderful. An integrated, market leading viewpoint will make a world of difference. Nikon has traditionally been an aspirational brand. Bring that back! They have an image (sorry for the pun), of rugged, dependable, innovative and high-end equipment. Bring that back! Make Nikon special. Make Nikon stand out.
p.2 #4 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
But Nikon has been losing market share every year for the last 5 years at least. Their latest estimate is they have 27% of the interchangable lens camera market and have been taken over by Sigma as no. 2 in lens sales. Does Nikon continue down this downward path of focusing on the DSLR market or wade into the mirrorless market where they are at least 5 years behind.
I once worked for a great owner that said you are either in the top two in a given market or you are nobody. I believe this is true in many markets...especially consumer markets. Where does this leave Nikon...no 2 in the shrinking DSLR market...and not even that if you take lenses into account.
I'm nor arguing with your assessment, just doing an honest analysis of where Nikon can go from here. ...Show more →
In a shrinking market normal marketing logic does not apply. First and foremost with reduced sales is profitability and applies to all camera manufacturers. Lens manufacturing is a more direct market and not quite as complex as developing and producing camera bodies. This is where Sigma will be very successful in the performance/price ratio. The Sigma lenses are now very similar in size and weight to the newer fast lenses.
For instance the Sony FE 35/1.4 (my favorite), 630 g, 79 mm and length 94 mm compared with Sigma 35 Art, 665 g, 77 mm and length 112 mm. Very little difference except that it is about 1/3 of the price.
As I mentioned in a shrinking market the decision process is entirely different. For instance comparing with Kodak and Fuji being number 1 and 2 meant very little unless they restructured and could continue to operate as functioning businesses. Kudos to Nikon as they do have to restructure as did Fuji. Personally I am pleased with Nikon and their rational approach
p.2 #5 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
The current prices of mirrorless systems give enough space for Nikon to compete. There are some great products out there, but they are not cheap either. Beside that, there are so many people that would buy Nikon rather than other brands, especially those who already owe Nikon gear. We may be surprised how soon that may happen. To me, there is only one question, what Nikon can get from Sony, I mean what kind of relationship they have regarding sensor availability from Sony to Nikon.
There is great thread on Fuji side about Fuji history and challenges they went through, and how they rebounded...thanks to great vision of their CEO/management, and technology they owe, it's a huge asset.
I wouldn't be that quick to write Nikon off...
p.2 #6 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
cvrle59 wrote:
The current prices of mirrorless systems give enough space for Nikon to compete. There are some great products out there, but they are not cheap either. Beside that, there are so many people that would buy Nikon rather than other brands, especially those who already owe Nikon gear. We may be surprised how soon that may happen. To me, there is only one question, what Nikon can get from Sony, I mean what kind of relationship they have regarding sensor availability from Sony to Nikon.
There is great thread on Fuji side about Fuji history and challenges they went through, and how they rebounded...thanks to great vision of their CEO/management, and technology they owe, it's a huge asset. I wouldn't be that quick to write Nikon off......Show more →
I agree Nikon having a well designed and thought out FF mirrorless would do extremely well. Having the large array of both old and new lenses that could be adapted is Nikon's real strength. This has been Sony's nemesis in having the lenses to match with the introduction of the A7. Of course Sony is catching up but these lenses are no longer light, small and in many instances a lot more expensive. This is also Leica's strength with huge array of superb M lenses spanning decades. Great camera bodies are wonderful but there needs to be great lenses to match. Personally I tend follow favorite lenses and then see if I can put up with camera bodies to match for a given size/weight, performance and price.
The Fuji story is very inspirational and well worthy of note. This has well placed Fuji to niche themselves with APS-C series and now the GFX. They don't have to compete in the FF arena.
p.2 #7 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
With mirrorless I think they'd really need to nail the ergonomics. The problem I have with a lot of mirrorless cameras is that they're great for a 50mm lens, but with a bigger lens they don't give you enough grip to really be comfortable.
If Nikon either made a detachable grip (and a big one, not the 1 centimetre thick "grip" some cameras have), or sold models with and without a built in grip it would make their cameras much more compatible with their range of f-mount lenses.
p.2 #8 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
With mirrorless I think they'd really need to nail the ergonomics. The problem I have with a lot of mirrorless cameras is that they're great for a 50mm lens, but with a bigger lens they don't give you enough grip to really be comfortable.
If Nikon either made a detachable grip (and a big one, not the 1 centimetre thick "grip" some cameras have), or sold models with and without a built in grip it would make their cameras much more compatible with their range of f-mount lenses.
I was impressed with the Fuji story, so I'll go back to it.
They had technology, they believed into their technology, and they used that technology to get out of a deep, deep hole.
Does Nikon have technology in this business? Do they know how to built great bodies with excellent ergonomics? Do they know how to built lenses?
It's matter of making right decisions. We hope they do..
p.2 #9 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
cvrle59 wrote:
The current prices of mirrorless systems give enough space for Nikon to compete. There are some great products out there, but they are not cheap either. Beside that, there are so many people that would buy Nikon rather than other brands, especially those who already owe Nikon gear. We may be surprised how soon that may happen. To me, there is only one question, what Nikon can get from Sony, I mean what kind of relationship they have regarding sensor availability from Sony to Nikon.
There is great thread on Fuji side about Fuji history and challenges they went through, and how they rebounded...thanks to great vision of their CEO/management, and technology they owe, it's a huge asset.
I wouldn't be that quick to write Nikon off......Show more →
Difference with Fuji and Nikon is the camera division in Fuji is their fun division...contributes very little to the overall success of the Fuji corporation. The imagining division for Nikon is huge and directly affects the success of the Nikon corporation. Fuji can take chances with their cameras and if they fail...nothing lost...but not so with Nikon.
As far as how successful Fuji is with the mirrorless cameras...they still don't crack the top 3 mirrorless in revenues...so like I said if you ain't in the top 2...
The difference is Fuji cameras are just a hobby for the Fuji corporation, so they don't need a lot of sales and revenue to survive.
p.2 #10 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
charles.K wrote:
I agree Nikon having a well designed and thought out FF mirrorless would do extremely well. Having the large array of both old and new lenses that could be adapted is Nikon's real strength. This has been Sony's nemesis in having the lenses to match with the introduction of the A7. Of course Sony is catching up but these lenses are no longer light, small and in many instances a lot more expensive. This is also Leica's strength with huge array of superb M lenses spanning decades. Great camera bodies are wonderful but there needs to be great lenses to match. Personally I tend follow favorite lenses and then see if I can put up with camera bodies to match for a given size/weight, performance and price.
The Fuji story is very inspirational and well worthy of note. This has well placed Fuji to niche themselves with APS-C series and now the GFX. They don't have to compete in the FF arena.
But Nikon is NOT a niche player like Fuji. That's a big difference...Nikon needs a lot of revenue to survive. Fuji cameras are a hobby...Nikon cameras are life and death.
p.2 #11 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
cvrle59 wrote:
I was impressed with the Fuji story, so I'll go back to it.
They had technology, they believed into their technology, and they used that technology to get out of a deep, deep hole.
Does Nikon have technology in this business? Do they know how to built great bodies with excellent ergonomics? Do they know how to built lenses?
It's matter of making right decisions. We hope they do..
Lets call a spade a spade here. Fuji is successful as a niche player...nothing more. Much like Leica is successful in their niche. Does Nikon want to be a niche player? What exactly is Nikon's niche?
p.2 #12 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
Difference with Fuji and Nikon is the camera division in Fuji is their fun division...contributes very little to the overall success of the Fuji corporation. The imagining division for Nikon is huge and directly affects the success of the Nikon corporation. Fuji can take chances with their cameras and if they fail...nothing lost...but not so with Nikon.
As far as how successful Fuji is with the mirrorless cameras...they still don't crack the top 3 mirrorless in revenues...so like I said if you ain't in the top 2...
The difference is Fuji cameras are just a hobby for the Fuji corporation, so they don't need a lot of sales and revenue to survive....Show more →
I suggest you watch that video first, I assume you didn't, according to this comment.
The Fuji story in that video is not actually about their current camera division, it's beyond that, it talks about transition from film maker to something completely different, them facing collapse similar like Kodak, but they were smarter.
p.2 #13 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
But Nikon is NOT a niche player like Fuji. That's a big difference...Nikon needs a lot of revenue to survive. Fuji cameras are a hobby...Nikon cameras are life and death.
Precisely! This is why Nikon has already shed 1,000 jobs and maybe more. Fuji shed 5,000 jobs at the time of their crisis. Nikon is adapting to their situation and I am sure will do very well. It is the ability to accept the situation and evolve.
Fuji now re-entering the market with the mini-MF is no hobby, and treating the high end pros with a well thought out camera body with a definitive lens plan as an alternative to high end FF DSLR's.
p.2 #14 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
Lets call a spade a spade here. Fuji is successful as a niche player...nothing more. Much like Leica is successful in their niche. Does Nikon want to be a niche player? What exactly is Nikon's niche?
Photography using FF DSLR's, FF mirrorless are already niche businesses. Of course the professionals and serious enthusiasts will continue to maintain the market, but the general consumer will no longer invest in large sums of money when you can use a smart phones, smaller format cameras purchased at a fraction of the cost. The historic strength of the camera industry was when the average person would also purchase a DSLR/Mirrorless alongside with all the professionals. The average person no longer prints images, so having larger formats is of no benefit to them. Why carry the extra size and weight if you have no need for resolution for printing large?
The camera manufacturers will survive but they will have to evolve. Nikon has made it clear it intends to cater for the middle and upper end of the market with lesser models. This sounds like excellent strategy to me
p.2 #15 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Nikon has a huge advantage in that there are lots of high quality lenses available on the used market. If they come out with a mirrorless system designed together with a native adapter for Nikon F-mount lenses (at least AF-S) they will already have a huge advantage over Sony.
This could be that high end compact camera they were discussing.
I also really hope they come out with D500 with FX sensor. They can use it to replace the D750.
With all that talk about having fewer DSLR models I have hard time imagining which models they should eliminate.
In the FX world,
- I believe they have had quite a success with high resolution line D8x0. So they should definitely keep it.
- There has to be a cheap entry FX camera. They could rely on used equipment, but I am not sure if that will be enough. They may need modern versions of D6x0.
- Then there is D5 series, that is almost like a leadership statement. I am not sure if they should eliminate that.
- And I think they should really transform D750 into a pro-style do it all camera.
In the DX world
- they need a cheap entry level D3x00 line to capture new customers.
- D500 is a major success and most definitely should be there.
- in principle they could merge D5x00 and D7x00 lines together. Since it has been already a while since the introduction of AF-S lenses, they could drop the built-in motor. On the other hand they should introduce the front sub-command dial into D5x00. That would make a superb light travel camera.
In fact, they could make both D3x00 and D5x00 lines mirrorless if they wanted.
p.2 #16 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
But Nikon has been losing market share every year for the last 5 years at least. Their latest estimate is they have 27% of the interchangable lens camera market and have been taken over by Sigma as no. 2 in lens sales. Does Nikon continue down this downward path of focusing on the DSLR market or wade into the mirrorless market where they are at least 5 years behind.
I once worked for a great owner that said you are either in the top two in a given market or you are nobody. I believe this is true in many markets...especially consumer markets. Where does this leave Nikon...no 2 in the shrinking DSLR market...and not even that if you take lenses into account.
I'm nor arguing with your assessment, just doing an honest analysis of where Nikon can go from here. ...Show more →
I also so the stat the Sigma surpassed Nikon in lens sales.......in the Japanese market. Nowhere have I seen that stat relating to the golbal market. The articale also did not specify if the sales were Nikon mount only in Japan, or they were referring to all Sigma mounts. While Sigma is doing a great job right now, ranking an optics manufacturer making products for 3 or 4 mounts, one of which is 60% of the market, against a manufacturer that only makes one mount is a hell of an advantage, no?
Also, just because you were told by somebody that if you arent in the top two, you' re nobody doesn't make it gospel. Think of all the auto manufacturers that arent in the top two. Any interest in owning any of them? I'll take Mercedes please.
p.2 #17 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Max Power wrote:
I also so the stat the Sigma surpassed Nikon in lens sales.......in the Japanese market. Nowhere have I seen that stat relating to the golbal market. The articale also did not specify if the sales were Nikon mount only in Japan, or they were referring to all Sigma mounts. While Sigma is doing a great job right now, ranking an optics manufacturer making products for 3 or 4 mounts, one of which is 60% of the market, against a manufacturer that only makes one mount is a hell of an advantage, no?
Also, just because you were told by somebody that if you arent in the top two, you' re nobody doesn't make it gospel. Think of all the auto manufacturers that arent in the top two. Any interest in owning any of them? I'll take Mercedes please. ...Show more →
It's not about what the consumer wants to own or shoot with...it's about the corporation. Do you feel a company like Ford or Toyota would want to become a niche player like Mercedes? just look at the DSLR market today...dominated by 2 companies...3rd place is Richo...how much do we talk about Richo ( Pentax ) on these forums. In the consumer market you are either in the top 2 or you are a niche.
Nothing wrong with niche products...in fact many times these products are very focused...but the corporation behind a niche product is different than the Nikon corporation.
p.2 #18 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
It's not about what the consumer wants to own or shoot with...it's about the corporation. Do you feel a company like Ford or Toyota would want to become a niche player like Mercedes? just look at the DSLR market today...dominated by 2 companies...3rd place is Richo...how much do we talk about Richo ( Pentax ) on these forums. In the consumer market you are either in the top 2 or you are a niche.
Nothing wrong with niche products...in fact many times these products are very focused...but the corporation behind a niche product is different than the Nikon corporation.
Well, I consider Mercedes to have a pretty big "niche". Point being there is room fior far nm0ore than "two" in any market.
I still haven't seen any clarity on the questions I asked about Sigma being "number 2". Where, and in what?
The reality is that in the DSLR market, 3rd place behind Nikon isn't even close.
p.2 #20 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Danner wrote:
I suppose a big factor is the maturing of digital technology. Main-line bodies can realistically have a 5-7 year life cycle, kind of like in the film days. After all, my vintage 2012 D800 does not leave me wanting, and that's 5 years old now.
Not yet maturing. DSLRs and other ILCs are like dumb mobile phones in 2006. There was not much reason to change mobile phone in 2006 except when it died. Phones couldn't get much smaller. All had pretty unintuitive handling (compared to what is now) - there were high switching costs for consumers moving from one brand (even model) to another.
What made all the change? Ability to be programmable and internet access along processor performance increase and better display technology. Internet access and programmable was there before, but in very limited and restrictive scope (WAP, J2ME, Symbian).
But biggest driver was programmability that can cater for specific users needs, where creation of apps was not just through hacks (like Magic Lantern), but in ecosystem that enables programmability by exposing various documented APIs and app distribution.
