p.3 #2 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
I can't even think of a single post made, anywhere, by any Nikon user, deploying a lower-end camera than a D7100/D300 to share their imagery.
p.3 #3 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
Just think about it: on photography forums, worldwide, you seldom see ANYone using the cheap cameras ... at the lowest they're using the D7100 and above [mostly D2/300, D71/7200, D500, D7/750, D8/810(E), D3(s/x)/4(s)/5].
I can't even think of a single post made, anywhere, by any Nikon user, deploying a lower-end camera than a D7100/D300 to share their imagery.
How odd, I see loads of them. And just because someone does not fritter away their life in online photography forums, does not mean they do not exist.
p.3 #4 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
I think the problem Nikon might have is that new camera users might opt for mirrorless because they bodies are smaller, and then once hooked, they will stay with that manufacturer. The mirrorless camera is the gateway drug, which gets the users hooked, and once hooked you can flog them the hard stuff.
The question that has not been answered is how far down the line Nikon have reached with their mirrorless plans. Is this a new dawn, and we have to wait 2+ years for new bodies, or are these new toys round the next corner? I tend to think the former, as poor sales of the 'action cameras' and the cancelling of the DL line suggest they have been caught with their trousers (pants) around their ankles.
p.3 #5 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
LeifG wrote:
How odd, I see loads of them. And just because someone does not fritter away their life in online photography forums, does not mean they do not exist.
The fact that Nikon is discontinuing the low-end of their offerings should be proof enough.
If you think about it, the people serious enough to "fritter their life away" with photography generally are serious enough to buy better gear than entry level ...
Cell phone cameras are getting so good nowadays, and are so convenient, with the ability to share instantly, that camera manufacturers need to widen the gap between "entry level" and what cell phones can do.
You have to really convince a person these days, who already has a $700 phone (that takes 4032x3024 images and shoots UHD 4K video) "why" they need to spend an extra several hundred dollars on a camera to dangle around their neck ... and trouble themselves with "post processing" on their computers.
If a person isn't serious enough to buy specialized lenses, and to work his images in Lightroom, then what does he need a camera for? He can pretty much do with his cell phone anything an entry camera + kit lens can do.
Better still, the person with a cell phone can *instantly* share his images, by text and by Facebook (and not trouble himself with post-processing), which is something no camera can do. Most people really just want to take snapshots and share.
So, unless someone is really into photography, and requires specialized lenses, a cell phone is the choice the majority are sticking with. Hence the crippled, shrinking camera market ... and hence Nikon's wise decision to focus on the better end of their inventory.
p.3 #6 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
The fact that Nikon is discontinuing the low-end of their offerings should be proof enough.
If you think about it, the people serious enough to "fritter their life away" with photography generally are serious enough to buy better gear than entry level ...
Cell phone cameras are getting so good nowadays, and are so convenient, with the ability to share instantly, that camera manufacturers need to widen the gap between "entry level" and what cell phones can do.
You have to really convince a person these days, who already has a $700 phone (that takes 4032x3024 images and shoots UHD 4K video) "why" they need to spend an extra several hundred dollars on a camera to dangle around their neck ... and trouble themselves with "post processing" on their computers.
If a person isn't serious enough to buy specialized lenses, and to work his images in Lightroom, then what does he need a camera for? He can pretty much do with his cell phone anything an entry camera + kit lens can do.
Better still, the person with a cell phone can *instantly* share his images, by text and by Facebook (and not trouble himself with post-processing), which is something no camera can do. Most people really just want to take snapshots and share.
So, unless someone is really into photography, and requires specialized lenses, a cell phone is the choice the majority are sticking with. Hence the crippled, shrinking camera market ... and hence Nikon's wise decision to focus on the better end of their inventory....Show more →
The main reason such people do buy some sort of entry level DSLR or Mirrorless or even P&S/Bridge camera is for one thing and one thing alone.....Zoom
At least that is what our local camera store told me when I asked them who was buying all the entry level stuff when their phones could take great pictures already.
p.3 #7 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
The fact that Nikon is discontinuing the low-end of their offerings should be proof enough.
If you think about it, the people serious enough to "fritter their life away" with photography generally are serious enough to buy better gear than entry level ...
Cell phone cameras are getting so good nowadays, and are so convenient, with the ability to share instantly, that camera manufacturers need to widen the gap between "entry level" and what cell phones can do.
You have to really convince a person these days, who already has a $700 phone (that takes 4032x3024 images and shoots UHD 4K video) "why" they need to spend an extra several hundred dollars on a camera to dangle around their neck ... and trouble themselves with "post processing" on their computers.
If a person isn't serious enough to buy specialized lenses, and to work his images in Lightroom, then what does he need a camera for? He can pretty much do with his cell phone anything an entry camera + kit lens can do.
Better still, the person with a cell phone can *instantly* share his images, by text and by Facebook (and not trouble himself with post-processing), which is something no camera can do. Most people really just want to take snapshots and share.
So, unless someone is really into photography, and requires specialized lenses, a cell phone is the choice the majority are sticking with. Hence the crippled, shrinking camera market ... and hence Nikon's wise decision to focus on the better end of their inventory....Show more →
No need to get so aggressive. I simply made the point that I see plenty of images taken by people with 'low end' Nikon DSLRs. Come to think of it, I see a few among the people I go recording fungi with. They want something better than a camera phone, but the D7100 and up are too big, and too expensive, and don't have nice fully articulated LCD panels.
p.3 #8 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
The fact that Nikon is discontinuing the low-end of their offerings should be proof enough.
If you think about it, the people serious enough to "fritter their life away" with photography generally are serious enough to buy better gear than entry level ...
Cell phone cameras are getting so good nowadays, and are so convenient, with the ability to share instantly, that camera manufacturers need to widen the gap between "entry level" and what cell phones can do.
You have to really convince a person these days, who already has a $700 phone (that takes 4032x3024 images and shoots UHD 4K video) "why" they need to spend an extra several hundred dollars on a camera to dangle around their neck ... and trouble themselves with "post processing" on their computers.
If a person isn't serious enough to buy specialized lenses, and to work his images in Lightroom, then what does he need a camera for? He can pretty much do with his cell phone anything an entry camera + kit lens can do.
Better still, the person with a cell phone can *instantly* share his images, by text and by Facebook (and not trouble himself with post-processing), which is something no camera can do. Most people really just want to take snapshots and share.
So, unless someone is really into photography, and requires specialized lenses, a cell phone is the choice the majority are sticking with. Hence the crippled, shrinking camera market ... and hence Nikon's wise decision to focus on the better end of their inventory....Show more →
I'd be wary if this is Nikon's strategy. My first digital ILC was a nikon D3100, then D5100 now D7100 and D600. Part of the reason why I stuck with Nikon was I was invested. I had Nikon glass which would fit the subsequent cameras and the user experience worked for me. If the leap into Nikon land started around 1K when I began, my pricey lenses likely would have a red ring rather than a gold one.
Those starting out in photography tend to be more price sensitive than folks who have been shooting for years I would imagine. I know the price of entry and system cost will way heavily as my Thai teacher gets into photography. With no entry level or inexpensive (relatively speaking) enthusiast cameras the expected progression is that new shooter will cut their teeth on mirrorless or Canon then for some reason sell it all off to jump to Nikon? Or add nikon as a 2nd system?
p.3 #9 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
That's my perception as well. In the past years I helped several people get started with DSLRs and for the most part they went with D3200 as the cheapest setup and only one went with D7000 because he had prior DSLR experience.
One teenage girl went with Canon becuase her friends were using Canon, even though I lent her my D5300 for a couple of weeks to see what it can do.
For anyone starting with DSLRs they generally know that image quality will be better. Beyond that they don't know what the differences are. It takes months (if not years) to understand and appreciate the differences. They often don't understand why you need different lenses. For these people you need to have a cheap simple kit to get started. D3x00 with 18-55 VR is a perfect choice. And if Nikon is interested in maintaining an influx of new users it should maintain this entry-point.
p.3 #10 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
arbitrage wrote:
The main reason such people do buy some sort of entry level DSLR or Mirrorless or even P&S/Bridge camera is for one thing and one thing alone.....Zoom
At least that is what our local camera store told me when I asked them who was buying all the entry level stuff when their phones could take great pictures already.
With a quick spread of the fingers on the LCD, you can "zoom" a phone, too ...
p.3 #11 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
vitalishe wrote:
That's my perception as well. In the past years I helped several people get started with DSLRs and for the most part they went with D3200 as the cheapest setup and only one went with D7000 because he had prior DSLR experience.
One teenage girl went with Canon becuase her friends were using Canon, even though I lent her my D5300 for a couple of weeks to see what it can do.
For anyone starting with DSLRs they generally know that image quality will be better. Beyond that they don't know what the differences are. It takes months (if not years) to understand and appreciate the differences. They often don't understand why you need different lenses. For these people you need to have a cheap simple kit to get started. D3x00 with 18-55 VR is a perfect choice. And if Nikon is interested in maintaining an influx of new users it should maintain this entry-point. ...Show more →
The trouble with "low end" is three-fold:
1) Those who buy budget cameras, typically buy budget glass;
2) The R&D for low-end is outdated almost as soon as it comes into being;
3) People who "get hooked" on photography, and decide to invest in more-and-more gear almost immediately regret buying low-end, and then have several hundred dollars in gear they now want to dispose of and replace with better gear.
It is simply better to save-up for a few additional months, and get mid-level to high-end gear to begin with, and not worry about "entry level" at all. I think it is a good idea for camera makers to move away from "budget lenses" and "budget cameras" altogether at this point, and concentrate on QUALITY.
6 years ago was different. People would have a "Gee, this is my first camera!" experience with their budget camera. Nowadays, everyone already has a camera in their $700 phones. There is no reason to buy a $600 camera, if you already have a $700 phone. People with high-end cell phones think, "Hell, my cell phone can do this!" if they have a low-end camera.
These days, I really believe it is better all the way around for Nikon (and others) to forget about "budget," and stick to quality.
p.3 #12 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
The trouble with "low end" is three-fold:
1) Those who buy budget cameras, typically buy budget glass;
2) The R&D for low-end is outdated almost as soon as it comes into being;
3) People who "get hooked" on photography, and decide to invest in more-and-more gear almost immediately regret buying low-end, and then have several hundred dollars in gear they now want to dispose of and replace with better gear.
It is simply better to save-up for a few additional months, and get mid-level to high-end gear to begin with, and not worry about "entry level" at all. I think it is a good idea for camera makers to move away from "budget lenses" and "budget cameras" altogether at this point, and concentrate on QUALITY.
6 years ago was different. People would have a "Gee, this is my first camera!" experience with their budget camera. Nowadays, everyone already has a camera in their $700 phones. There is no reason to buy a $600 camera, if you already have a $700 phone. People with high-end cell phones think, "Hell, my cell phone can do this!" if they have a low-end camera.
These days, I really believe it is better all the way around for Nikon (and others) to forget about "budget," and stick to quality....Show more →
Your problem is you assume the average person on this board represents the average consumer. Far from it. The average customer buys a low end kit and is happy with it. They don't pixel peep. They don't get onto Fred Miranda and get equipment envy and create GAS. They just are happy taking pictures.
Even less reason for people to buy a cheap entry level DSLR.
You can't get round the physics of a small sensor and lens. There is room for compact (smartphone), mid-range (4/3 and APS-C) and pro cameras. Nikon has lost the compact market due to the rise of the smartphone. The question is can they cling on to the mid-range. And if not, they may well become a niche player. As I've said before, how Nikon does in the mirrorless market may well determine how well they do in the pro market, unless there is a compelling reason for a keen amateur invested in non Nikon mid range gear to transfer to Nikon pro gear.
Anyone know the state of Nikon mirrorless cameras? No?
Feb 27, 2017 at 06:38 PM
George Orwell Offline • • [X]
p.3 #16 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
charles.K wrote:
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.
Less than 1.5% of Fujiflm's revenue comes from digital cameras. That places cameras squarely in the hobby category. Fujifilm could shut down their entire digital camera division and not lose much operating profit at all.
p.3 #17 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
George Orwell wrote:
Less than 1.5% of Fujiflm's revenue comes from digital cameras. That places cameras squarely in the hobby category. Fujifilm could shut down their entire digital camera division and not lose much operating profit at all.
This is an obtuse comment relating digital camera revenue as percentage of the groups total and then concluding this is a hobby. This is why Sony could embark on digital cameras as they were well capitalized as part of a much larger group.
Kudos to Fijifilm for diversifying their businesses as this is a positive attribute. Photography for advanced enthusiasts and even Pro's is a niche'd market now. Photography since early 1800's has always been a specialist area, and it was not until Kodak, Agfa then Fuji that facilitated that people could share images and became so popular. Imaging has changed so much, not only stills but videos but extends so much further than our narrow perception of just taking a "photograph". The medical imaging market is massive and is growing exponentially. We now have drones taking aerial images for so many different applications. The imaging market is growing exponentially together with new applications. It is exciting times!
Fuji is very passionate about photography as we perceive it and if you read the history it is part of their deep set culture. If Fuji's digital camera revenue was just 0.05% of their revenue, then it is just a statement of the strength of the Fuji businesses as a group, not about their commitment or passion about photography.
Fuji is moving forward and it is clear with the introduction of the GFX 50s, and also with the continued growth of the APS-C cameras. From Fuji's perspective they do not need compete in the FF market.
p.3 #18 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
JohnK007 wrote:
The trouble with "low end" is three-fold:
1) Those who buy budget cameras, typically buy budget glass;
2) The R&D for low-end is outdated almost as soon as it comes into being;
3) People who "get hooked" on photography, and decide to invest in more-and-more gear almost immediately regret buying low-end, and then have several hundred dollars in gear they now want to dispose of and replace with better gear.
It is simply better to save-up for a few additional months, and get mid-level to high-end gear to begin with, and not worry about "entry level" at all. I think it is a good idea for camera makers to move away from "budget lenses" and "budget cameras" altogether at this point, and concentrate on QUALITY.
6 years ago was different. People would have a "Gee, this is my first camera!" experience with their budget camera. Nowadays, everyone already has a camera in their $700 phones. There is no reason to buy a $600 camera, if you already have a $700 phone. People with high-end cell phones think, "Hell, my cell phone can do this!" if they have a low-end camera.
These days, I really believe it is better all the way around for Nikon (and others) to forget about "budget," and stick to quality....Show more →
1) I bought a D3100, the picture above was taken with a 70-200VR2, my 14-24 2.8 was on my second body. I bought the 105 1.4E the first day it was available in Thailand. Also not sure if the 200 F2 qualifies as budget. There are some who buy entry level camera kits and stop there, there are others who progress. As long as Nikon is earning a positive margin (including overhead) on the lower end kits, they add to the bottom line directly, and potentially earn lifetime customers (or incremental purchases if not lifetime customers).
2) Lower priced options allow the R&D costs of higher end specs to be amortized over a longer period and more models. My D5100 had 11 AF points, the D5500 I bought my gf had 39. This AF system was trickled down from more expensive models.
3) Does this 'regret' manifest in some hostility towards Nikon for offering an entry level product or does it become a learning experience? I bought the D3100 and upgraded to a D5100 in relatively short order. (long story but I mistakenly believed I was inside the return window). I didn't shake my fist at the sky and damn nikon. The D3100 still takes good pictures, and was first given to my dad until he inherited my D5100 then given to an orphanage. When I traveled with my father, I would swap a more expensive body with him and use the D3100 because I knew it could deliver quality photos (though its shooting envelope was materially narrower).
Nowadays, everyone already has a camera in their $700 phones. There is no reason to buy a $600 camera, if you already have a $700 phone. People with high-end cell phones think, "Hell, my cell phone can do this!" if they have a low-end camera.
4) Everyone has a 700 phone? In good light there is not much difference between the latest D3XXX and D7XXX to a neophyte. So while people were unwilling to spend ~600 for a starter kit due to image quality. They are now willing to spend ~1000 for a body only? They also are so smitten with the Nikon name that they are willing to deal with the high cost of entry and overlook the more affordable options from Canon, Pentax, and mirrorless?
p.3 #19 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Nikon in moving forward may not focus on the lower end of the market, but they may still maintain a few entry level bodies in APS-C format. Having these bodies at price levels is so good for many people who love photography beyond the smart phone, but are very limited in budget. I have mentioned before our close family friend, originally purchased the D3300 with kit lens and loved it. She has only just recently upgraded the body to the D7200. Some of her photos are amazing and a number of them have been presented on magazine covers.
Some of the discussions relating to the quality of bodies and lenses, is no way proportional to the quality of images. There are many talented people with an artistic eye for photography that just produce amazing images even with these entry level bodies and lenses.
p.3 #20 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
LeifG wrote:
You can't get round the physics of a small sensor and lens. There is room for compact (smartphone), mid-range (4/3 and APS-C) and pro cameras. Nikon has lost the compact market due to the rise of the smartphone. The question is can they cling on to the mid-range. And if not, they may well become a niche player. As I've said before, how Nikon does in the mirrorless market may well determine how well they do in the pro market, unless there is a compelling reason for a keen amateur invested in non Nikon mid range gear to transfer to Nikon pro gear.
Anyone know the state of Nikon mirrorless cameras? No?...Show more →
It's not the reason I posted this link. I posted the link to show that even less people will opt for an entry level DLSR because they can now get a "good enough camera in their phone". I see less and less people with entry level DSLR's and especially P&S cameras, a phone with a zoom lens in it will be another nail in the coffin of the entry level DSLR and P&S range, probably why Nikon saw the writing on the wall.
