p.6 #1 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
I recently recommended others to use 1" compacts and they are all impressed (they all use high end smartphones). Many people have older (smaller than 1" sensor) compacts and those compact cameras with 1/2.5" sensors are often their reference point to compare image quality against smartphone. Nikon keep launching tiny sensor compacts would only reinforce their believe that a dedicated camera does not provide better IQ than their phone.
Smartphones usually produce excellent jpg and squzze the most out of the small sensor is also a huge advantage.
Long lens, wide angle and larger sensors compacts are only compacts that might survive the rise of smartphone yet Nikon abandoned the DL.
I lent a Nikon J5 to a colleague who was too busy to buy a camera before her trip. After she returned from Europe,she immediately got herself a camera. To my surprise, she brought a Canon G5x instead of smaller sliblings(G7x, G9x) I recommended. That shows some people are still willing to carry a camera(albeit probably not large as a DSLR) IF they realized there are sufficient benefits to do so.
I think 1" sensor should be the new low-end for a general purpose camera (Unless it's selling point is, say, super long lens) or people would just rather use their smartphone.
p.6 #3 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
PhotoMaximum wrote:
In the old days with Nikon (and Canon) the marketing/advertising strategy was to show off the really high end top level pro kit that helped create the Nikon mystique: creating that want for regular folks who could never afford the top level stuff, but they they would gladly purchase kit further down the product food chain. Did Nikon make that much income selling a few 400/2.8 lenses versus say millions of 80-200/4 zooms? This was a successful marketing strategy.
But times have changed. More people want instant speed for sharing thier images over having a photographic kit ecosystem. What should keep executives of camera companies awake at night is the changing habits of younger generations. How many younger people will go through their entire lives without ever owning a real camera, but still produce a zillion images along the way? ...Show more →
That's the bottom line, for many the convenience of a phone outweighs the better results of a bulky, heavy and expensive DSLR. Prior to phones, you had to purchase a camera to take photos and the camera manufactures hooked you into a p&s or low end camera and then used famous people or great images to lure you to the hire end cameras.
Today, many people don't even think about a camera as their phone does so much...camera manufactures have it out for them to figure out what it will take to get these phone shooters to even look at a camera.
p.6 #4 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
I don't understand why Nikon, Canon and every other camera manufacturer for that matter seem to be lying down and just taking it from smartphones. Why aren't they on the attack?
We are all photographers and know the benefits of a DSLR or a mirrorless camera over a smartphone but many don't.
They could be on the attack in a number of ways.
Emotive would be one of them ... why make memories of your kids and family with a phone ... don't they deserve better? Don't you deserve better? Get a real camera. Imagine a couple of teenagers in the future with their respective dads looking at themselves in sports photos from 10 years prior ... one kid turns to his dad looking at the other kids awesome sports photos and says ... why did you use a phone dad and not a real camera when I was playing football?
All phones are rubbish in low light. We never hear Nikon or anyone plating up this strength against phones.
Or the zoom ability of interchangeable lenses ... they could show how many more great memories you could come home with from a vacation using a zoom lens rather than a 28mm equiv of a phone.
Or even appeal to those who have ditched their DSLR in favour of just using a phone ... ask them to go back and compare images shot with each and see what they think. Or use this in an ad campaign.
Speed, AF, viewfinder ... there's so much they could market themselves as a direct competitor to using a phone as a camera but they do nothing. None of them. I have never seen any camera manufacturer directly put itself up against a phone and spell out the advantages of using a proper camera instead of a phone.
Maybe it's time for camera manufacturers to wage a bit of war against phones and not simply downsize and downscale. They need start competing with phones and capitalise on their strengths.
They almost need to market themselves as a new product for this generation as this generation has never known anything but the camera in a phone.
I get the impression they don't even want to compete ... even though they have so many advantages.
p.6 #5 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
If by competing, you mean marketing, sure, sounds great. Hard to say what the payoff is for blue sky advertising, and often hard to justify from the expense ledger when corporate downsizing, as the first thing to go (other than staff) is marketing budgets. From a hardware standpoint, not sure what they can do. They have as much chance competing with smart phones as land lines do. Time and technology have deemed the point and shoot obsolete, just like phone booths.
What often gets lost in all these technologies is the boom and bust cycle of all of it. People take boom periods and start behaving like they are the new normal, and history has shown us that that rarely happens. When PCs were new, and you had to upgrade every two years, sales were fantastic. Then the technology leveled off, and Dell et al spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to regain all those lost sales, blaming every technology under the sun for the decline. When flat screen HDTVs became a thing, people ditched perfectly good working tube TVs for the upgrade. Now that is pretty much done. Same with cell phones themselves. Now that the iPhone is 10 years old, each new launch appeals to the masses less and only appeal to the fanbois, there is just little reason to upgrade unless your plan dictates it.
Cameras are the same way. A mere decade ago the D70 was the first digital SLR that was within reach of the average Joe, using old lenses no less, and a whole bunch of people upgraded their systems to digital. And with rapid advancements, people upgraded every year or two to take advantage of the new technologies. Now, in 2017, those technologies are mature, normal people are hanging on to their bodies 5 years or more, yet the whole industry and forum chatting class are wringing their hands trying to fend off the Armageddon of declining sales, saying the death of photography is nigh, those damn millenials.
Save yourself the hand wringing. It's a mature technology, the pipeline is pretty much filled. 5 years ago sales was not the new normal, it was a boom, and booms are not sustainable for the long term. Corporations will right size, and continue to make fantastic products for a less than frantic boom cycle. It's how these things work.
p.6 #6 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Max Power wrote:
If by competing, you mean marketing, sure, sounds great. Hard to say what the payoff is for blue sky advertising, and often hard to justify from the expense ledger when corporate downsizing, as the first thing to go (other than staff) is marketing budgets. From a hardware standpoint, not sure what they can do. They have as much chance competing with smart phones as land lines do. Time and technology have deemed the point and shoot obsolete, just like phone booths.
What often gets lost in all these technologies is the boom and bust cycle of all of it. People take boom periods and start behaving like they are the new normal, and history has shown us that that rarely happens. When PCs were new, and you had to upgrade every two years, sales were fantastic. Then the technology leveled off, and Dell et al spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to regain all those lost sales, blaming every technology under the sun for the decline. When flat screen HDTVs became a thing, people ditched perfectly good working tube TVs for the upgrade. Now that is pretty much done. Same with cell phones themselves. Now that the iPhone is 10 years old, each new launch appeals to the masses less and only appeal to the fanbois, there is just little reason to upgrade unless your plan dictates it.
Cameras are the same way. A mere decade ago the D70 was the first digital SLR that was within reach of the average Joe, using old lenses no less, and a whole bunch of people upgraded their systems to digital. And with rapid advancements, people upgraded every year or two to take advantage of the new technologies. Now, in 2017, those technologies are mature, normal people are hanging on to their bodies 5 years or more, yet the whole industry and forum chatting class are wringing their hands trying to fend off the Armageddon of declining sales, saying the death of photography is nigh, those damn millenials.
Save yourself the hand wringing. It's a mature technology, the pipeline is pretty much filled. 5 years ago sales was not the new normal, it was a boom, and booms are not sustainable for the long term. Corporations will right size, and continue to make fantastic products for a less than frantic boom cycle. It's how these things work. ...Show more →
The big difference you seem not to recognize is the low end camera market is gone...this low end generated much more revenue for the camera manufactures than the high end. This will impact the camera market greatly...and it won't be like it was during the film days as the film days had a healthy low end camera market. There is surely going to be a shake up in the industry...guess we'll see what's left standing after the shake up.
p.6 #7 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Not mentioned in NIKON's strategy release is the huge growth in licensing fees associated with F-Mount lenses. With SIGMA, ZEISS, IRIX coupled with other Asian providers, NIKON enjoys incremental profit and enhances their photographic output quality as displayed on the various net sites (Flickr/Flickriver, etc.).
As for inroads from cell phone cameras/Instagram/Snapchat–there isn't much traditional camera mfgs can do–other than to expand video offerings.
There's revenue to be made with compact 4K, full 422 recording.
p.6 #8 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
sector99 wrote:
Not mentioned in NIKON's strategy release is the huge growth in licensing fees associated with F-Mount lenses. With SIGMA, ZEISS, IRIX coupled with other Asian providers, NIKON enjoys incremental profit and enhances their photographic output quality as displayed on the various net sites (Flickr/Flickriver, etc.).
As for inroads from cell phone cameras/Instagram/Snapchat–there isn't much traditional camera mfgs can do–other than to expand video offerings.
There's revenue to be made with compact 4K, full 422 recording.
Well yeh...but every sale of a Sigma, Zeiss or other 3rd party lens means a non sale of a Nikon lens. Anyone know how much the licensing fees are. I was under the impression Sigma does not license...they reverse engineer.
p.6 #12 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
The big difference you seem not to recognize is the low end camera market is gone...this low end generated much more revenue for the camera manufactures than the high end. This will impact the camera market greatly...and it won't be like it was during the film days as the film days had a healthy low end camera market. There is surely going to be a shake up in the industry...guess we'll see what's left standing after the shake up.
That point was acknowledged and recognized the first five times you made it, even when it had little to do with what I was talking about. Consider this reply the official acknowledgement so that you can move on.
p.6 #13 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Max Power wrote:
That point was acknowledged and recognized the first five times you made it, even when it had little to do with what I was talking about. Consider this reply the official acknowledgement so that you can move on.
Here's a few of your quotes which tell me you really don't get it. The low end market brought in much of the revenue into the camera division which feeds R&D and new product launches. You can't loose 2/3 of your revenue in a division and not affect that division...just black and white to me.
"If by "low end" you mean point and shoot, I am not sure Coolpix cameras ever represented huge volume for Nikon. I would love to see actual sales numbers rather than rampant speculation."
" However, it really doesn't address that reduced sales of Coolpix dramatically effects high end models, and it really doesn't support the assertion that the low end stuff pays for the high end stuff at all. "
"The loss of revenue from low end cameras is really no different than the loss in revenue in the lithography division, in the grand scheme of things. It hurts the company as a whole, but you can't say for certain how that will reflect on high end DSLR sales or pricing."
p.6 #14 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
chez wrote:
Here's a few of your quotes which tell me you really don't get it. The low end market brought in much of the revenue into the camera division which feeds R&D and new product launches. You can't loose 2/3 of your revenue in a division and not affect that division...just black and white to me.
"If by "low end" you mean point and shoot, I am not sure Coolpix cameras ever represented huge volume for Nikon. I would love to see actual sales numbers rather than rampant speculation."
" However, it really doesn't address that reduced sales of Coolpix dramatically effects high end models, and it really doesn't support the assertion that the low end stuff pays for the high end stuff at all. "
"The loss of revenue from low end cameras is really no different than the loss in revenue in the lithography division, in the grand scheme of things. It hurts the company as a whole, but you can't say for certain how that will reflect on high end DSLR sales or pricing."
Is this the point now where I point out that you completely missed my point, are starting to follow me around to force your side, where I start calling you a troll, where you get nasty in response, then you get banned yet again from another Fred Miranda forum because it appears your hobby is being obtuse and argumentative?
I have tried being civil, in spite of what I have heard, and you are absolutely insufferable. Have a great weekend arguing with the house plants.
Mar 03, 2017 at 05:07 PM
brian_sp Offline • • • • [X]
p.6 #15 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Max Power wrote:
Is this the point now where I point out that you completely missed my point, are starting to follow me around to force your side, where I start calling you a troll, where you get nasty in response, then you get banned yet again from another Fred Miranda forum because it appears your hobby is being obtuse and argumentative?
I have tried being civil, in spite of what I have heard, and you are absolutely insufferable. Have a great weekend arguing with the house plants.
p.6 #16 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
i am wondering how this situation compares to the film era. I mean with film, other than build quality, AF and frame rate, one could get same results with most any body. The "upgrade" rate was probably not as fluid as it is with digital. would be interesting to see a sales chart from the 90s on the same subject
p.6 #17 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
Dustin Gent wrote:
i am wondering how this situation compares to the film era. I mean with film, other than build quality, AF and frame rate, one could get same results with most any body. The "upgrade" rate was probably not as fluid as it is with digital. would be interesting to see a sales chart from the 90s on the same subject
That is a good point.
I think the smart phone sales boom is a complete red herring as far as DSLR sales go. Most of us buy a smart phone, most of us upgrade regularly, so sales are high. And they come with a camera, which pretty much matches a compact camera. So the sales of compact digital cameras have plummetted.
We all know that sales of DSLR are going down, but this is nothing to do with smart phones. No-one buys a smart phone to replace a DSLR. Other why did DSLR sales rocket when compact cameras were available?
The real question which no-one has answered, is has the USE of DSLR cameras gone down? In other words, does actual usage support claims that people are turning away from DSLRS? Reporting what some friends and/or family do is not proof. I know a fungus recording group where most members use a DSLR or a digital bridge camera. But that proves nowt.
Without doubt some of the huge drops in DSLR sales are due to market saturation and maturing technology. The question is how much of the drop is due to these causes, and how much due to people moving away from larger cameras. I've seen no evidence to draw any conclusions, just opinions.
p.6 #18 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
i absolutely agree with you on market saturation. How many entry level cameras does a company need?
D3200, D3300, D3400, D5300, D5500, D5600, D7200, D500, D610, Df, D750, D810, D810a, D5
both canon and nikon i think went a bit overboard with expanding their models. I remember when the Canon 10D came out. I think Canon had the Rebel, 10D, 1D and 1Ds. simple. Nikon had the same. Now there are 5+ entry level cameras. If they do something like D5600, D500, D750, D810, D5 i think it will clean up the lineup and confusion. Why the need for a D610 AND a D750? or all the D3000 and D5000 series cameras?
and as far as smart phones and such, it is the gateway to photography for a lot of the younger crowds. I think that this is the first experience into the photography world, and people eventually will graduate from phone to DSLR. I personally use my phone as a documentary camera. If i am scouting an area, or on the trail, etc - i will use the phone. Or for quick video and such. But for anything serious, i will use my camera.
p.6 #19 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
LeifG wrote:
That is a good point.
I think the smart phone sales boom is a complete red herring as far as DSLR sales go. Most of us buy a smart phone, most of us upgrade regularly, so sales are high. And they come with a camera, which pretty much matches a compact camera. So the sales of compact digital cameras have plummetted.
We all know that sales of DSLR are going down, but this is nothing to do with smart phones. No-one buys a smart phone to replace a DSLR. Other why did DSLR sales rocket when compact cameras were available?
The real question which no-one has answered, is has the USE of DSLR cameras gone down? In other words, does actual usage support claims that people are turning away from DSLRS? Reporting what some friends and/or family do is not proof. I know a fungus recording group where most members use a DSLR or a digital bridge camera. But that proves nowt.
Without doubt some of the huge drops in DSLR sales are due to market saturation and maturing technology. The question is how much of the drop is due to these causes, and how much due to people moving away from larger cameras. I've seen no evidence to draw any conclusions, just opinions. ...Show more →
Kinda what I have been saying all along. Good question on the overall use of DSLRs. Hadn't really thought of it like that. My gut feeling, and this is just opinion, is that either you are a real camera guy or you are not. I think that held true in the film days, and I think it holds true now. How that relates in terms of use is that now that we don't have to pay for our mistakes (or our keepers for that matter) , I 'think" usage may be up compared to the old days. More time will have to play out to be sure, but once you buy your gear, the costs are not an issue.
The thing that really strikes me is the sales charts from 2003, which was pretty much the start of digital, through till now shows a sharp increase in sales, exponential increases even, followed by a decline from those peaks from 5 years ago. People who refuse to add any historical perspective think a decline from the peak means the death of photography. I disagree. We are still at a level much higher than in the film days, and I don't think it is unrealistic to expect numbers to continue to drift back to those pre-digital days.
We have seen it with many booms or product cycles, but it PCs, real estate, the stock market, cell phones. People believe the boom is the new normal, and when the tide rolls out, it's armageddon. I think there will be new normals when the dust settles. As people have geared up with what they need, the need for new bodies every three months will seem kind of silly.
p.6 #20 · Nikon's new strategy....sounds good to me...
deang001 wrote:
I don't understand why Nikon, Canon and every other camera manufacturer for that matter seem to be lying down and just taking it from smartphones. Why aren't they on the attack?
We are all photographers and know the benefits of a DSLR or a mirrorless camera over a smartphone but many don't.
They could be on the attack in a number of ways.
Emotive would be one of them ... why make memories of your kids and family with a phone ... don't they deserve better? Don't you deserve better? Get a real camera. Imagine a couple of teenagers in the future with their respective dads looking at themselves in sports photos from 10 years prior ... one kid turns to his dad looking at the other kids awesome sports photos and says ... why did you use a phone dad and not a real camera when I was playing football?
All phones are rubbish in low light. We never hear Nikon or anyone plating up this strength against phones.
Or the zoom ability of interchangeable lenses ... they could show how many more great memories you could come home with from a vacation using a zoom lens rather than a 28mm equiv of a phone.
Or even appeal to those who have ditched their DSLR in favour of just using a phone ... ask them to go back and compare images shot with each and see what they think. Or use this in an ad campaign.
Speed, AF, viewfinder ... there's so much they could market themselves as a direct competitor to using a phone as a camera but they do nothing. None of them. I have never seen any camera manufacturer directly put itself up against a phone and spell out the advantages of using a proper camera instead of a phone.
Maybe it's time for camera manufacturers to wage a bit of war against phones and not simply downsize and downscale. They need start competing with phones and capitalise on their strengths.
They almost need to market themselves as a new product for this generation as this generation has never known anything but the camera in a phone.
I get the impression they don't even want to compete ... even though they have so many advantages....Show more →
IMHO...the people who feel their phone is a more than adequate camera don't care about the items you listed.
Speed, AF, Viewfinder, low light performance, interchangeable lenses...these are items that photographers care about. Most non-photographers are oblivious, scared, confused, or simply confused about the aforementioned benefits of a DSLR. The average consumer doesn't care about that stuff...so how productive is time spent trying to educate people on items they don't care about?
I have talked to many of my friends about the benefits of a DSLR...and most of them value convenience of their phones. They love the simplicity of their phones...they want to be able to point, shoot, and capture the picture. They are not interested in becoming photographers, they are interested in easily capturing pictures of their family and friends. They are not interested in carrying an additional piece of equipment. They are not interested in taking the time to learn the language of photography, they are not interested in autofocus speed and histograms or how to get the most out of Lightroom. They want one product that allows them to communicate, surf the web, and take pictures...and they want that one product at a price point significantly less than many DSLRs offerings.
