[serothis]

Perhaps it’s the doom and gloom side of me but Nikon has a lot of small to moderate issues that really is building to a big issue.

The posters above have already pointed out to the quality control issues.

I think the other major issue is that Nikon for a long time hasn’t had to do anything. All they’ve had to do is slap their name on a product and it would sell like hotcakes. They make fine products but, their products are just refinements of their predecessors. They haven’t branched out (much). And they still remain very expensive (because Nikon).

The Coolpix line is old and stale. The DL line is just the Coolpix but on steroids and more expensive.

They haven't really done anything new. It's the same old formula over and over again. Last month my GF bought an Olympus OM-D EM10 II. It’s fantastic little camera. It brings a lot of DSLR features/flexibility in a compact, light and inexpensive package. It’s not a complete replacement for a DSLR but for your average consumer it’s close enough. And it's stylish to boot. Nikon (and canon) cameras are boring blobs. The notable exception was the Df but that was priced into oblivion.

I think the problem is, Nikon has their product model. It worked really well in the late 90's/2000's and they're too proud/stubborn to change.

[RobA_Oz]

...Also he writes a lot about quality problems. The search for a country with the lowest wage rates seems to me to be a race to the bottom...

Having done some work in China several years ago, dealing with quality management in manufacturing, I know it's possible for this to be an issue. My take from that experience is that you can't expect a work culture to take root quickly in a place where it hasn't existed before. However, you'd expect all the major Japanese camera-makers to be similarly affected, given that they all do some manufacturing work outside Japan. Perhaps Nikon was just unlucky in picking the sites they have.

The other thing that's puzzled me for some time, is how Nikon and Canon treat their professional support activities, namely whether they are regarded as business units in their own right, and are therefore expected to return a profit, or whether they are regarded as a marketing expense. Perhaps a mix of the two is the answer, but all that hardware exposure and carrying expensive lenses and bodies for major event photography (and there are very many of those events) must come at a substantial cost.

[Winder]

I think Nikon has some problems with cost controls. If Ricoh can make the K-1 at $1,800 and make a profit, then there is no reason that Nikon isn't raking in money with the D810 and the rest of the line. Nikon needs to get lean. They have the technology, brand recognition, distribution, and the customer base. They need to get cost under control.

Nikon has started massive cost cutting measures all over the world | Nikon Rumors

[RobA_Oz]

Nikon has started massive cost cutting measures all over the world | Nikon Rumors

Fascinating. Nikon ceasing to pay sales commissions must put them at a disadvantage, if other makers continue to do so. I presume Canon pays sales commissions, but I wonder who else does?

[LaurenOE]

Nikon has too many dSLRs in their line up.
It's confusing, and hard to understand where all their cameras fit.

With quality control problems, and so many cameras, not only will consumers have a problem understanding where all their camera fit, but now they are not sure which cameras have the problems.

As a result - ALL - Nikon cameras will suffer, and consumers will stay away.
It's one thing to say a specific camera, in a limited line-up, has issues.
It's another thing to have multiple cameras, with issues, in a wash of confusing models.

In some ways, it's a death spiral.

[HopelessTogger]

Look at company results. Look at various indices. Look at economic indicators. Look at the state of various countries around the World today.

It ain't just Nikon.

[cali92rs]

C'mon guys...this the same "(insert camera company) is doomed" talk that plagues every camera message board. Let me take that back...EVERY tech board (MS is doomed, apple is doomed, Chevy is doomed, samsung is doomed etc etc).

[mecrox]

The one to watch is Canon, imho. They are the undisputed #1. Where they go, everyone else will surely follow. And if Nikon institute a makeover from which a leaner company emerges with stronger products that's to be welcomed. A healthy industry with outfits profitable enough to invest in new thinking and R&D is in all our interests.

[Fenwoodian]

I currently shoot Pentax, Fuji X, and Nikon.

Nikon was known as a camera "generalist" making cameras for everyone for every purpose.

However, these days, their small cameras can not compete with SmartPhones. Their APS-C line is missing lots of lenses. Their full frame line has too many QC issues.

I see Nikon as becoming more of a "niche" player in the future and less of a "generalist". For example, their new D500 is the best fast action shooter in the world. That is the camera I'm taking to the Olympics and will be using for birds in flight.

Conversely, I see Pentax doing just the opposite. They were known for their "niche" super-weather resistant and smallish APS-C digital cameras. Now Pentax has produced some "generalist" cameras (K3ii, K3, K1) with wide appeal to amateurs and professionals alike.

I foresee, Pentax/Ricoh's share of camera sales increasing over time, while Nikon's share will continue to decrease.

[RockvilleBob]

I currently shoot Pentax, Fuji X, and Nikon.

Nikon was known as a camera "generalist" making cameras for everyone for every purpose.

However, these days, their small cameras can not compete with SmartPhones. Their APS-C line is missing lots of lenses. Their full frame line has too many QC issues.

I see Nikon as becoming more of a "niche" player in the future and less of a "generalist". For example, their new D500 is the best fast action shooter in the world. That is the camera I'm taking to the Olympics and will be using for birds in flight.

Conversely, I see Pentax doing just the opposite. They were known for their "niche" super-weather resistant and smallish APS-C digital cameras. Now Pentax has produced some "generalist" cameras (K3ii, K3, K1) with wide appeal to amateurs and professionals alike.

I foresee, Pentax/Ricoh's share of camera sales increasing over time, while Nikon's share will continue to decrease.

I am thinking of getting the D500 for wildlife, especially birds in flight. Just curious about what lens you use - I was thinking of the 400 f2.8 since it seems to make better use of the D500 AF system and performance is good with TC's. Just looking for some experience if I decide to take the plunge - thanks.

[reh321]

I see Nikon as becoming more of a "niche" player in the future and less of a "generalist". For example, their new D500 is the best fast action shooter in the world. That is the camera I'm taking to the Olympics and will be using for birds in flight.

It would have to be significantly better than the latest 1Dx camera in order to get all those professionals to leave their investments in white lenses behind.

[philbaum]

Nikon has too many dSLRs in their line up.
It's confusing, and hard to understand where all their cameras fit.

With quality control problems, and so many cameras, not only will consumers have a problem understanding where all their camera fit, but now they are not sure which cameras have the problems.

As a result - ALL - Nikon cameras will suffer, and consumers will stay away.
It's one thing to say a specific camera, in a limited line-up, has issues.
It's another thing to have multiple cameras, with issues, in a wash of confusing models.

In some ways, it's a death spiral.

Every company likes free advertising, but the kind Nikon is getting these days is not helping them. I should be more sympathetic to them, but my attitude towards Nikon was sort of set when an arrogant member welcomed me to a photography club by informing me that i had the wrong kind of camera (a Pentax). That Nikon was the only manufacturer that could make sharp lenses. He was quite certain of that.

Large companies often have too many layers of organizational management, which makes it more difficult to adapt to changes. Too many people have to buy into a new idea before it can be adopted, Often times, good ideas are dropped because of the effort to push them thru the organization. Sony, at least recently seems to consciously counter this by making different parts of their company into separate entities, such as the sensor division. Thats a good sign of management awareness and they seem to be doing quite well now, at least in the camera and sensor arenas.

Nikon, with this latest rumor, seems to be shedding costly activities as quick as they can. But if their cost cutting is not outpacing their sales losses, then it may be a death spiral. Eliminating the worst factories and non-performing camera lines may do a lot to restore confidence.

[LaurenOE]

C'mon guys...this the same "(insert camera company) is doomed" talk that plagues every camera message board. Let me take that back...EVERY tech board (MS is doomed, apple is doomed, Chevy is doomed, samsung is doomed etc etc).

I don't think Nikon is "doomed", but they are entering into a death spiral like we had here at Pentax, right before the MZ-D fiasco, and into 2003.

Right up until the MZ-D, Pentax was making a ton of crappy low quality 35mm cameras.
Sure, there was the MZ-S, and *maybe* the *ist, but it was too little too late.
The MZ-D was going to be a "hail mary" and we know how that turned out.

The majority of the PZ,ZX/MZ, lines, were plastic and lesser quality, as Pentax made too many cameras for the market and tried to do what Nikon is doing.

Pentax was in a death spiral until the *Ist-D came, and it took a decade to crawl out of it.

[rawr]

The majority of the PZ,ZX/MZ, lines, were plastic and lesser quality,

Agreed. After the MG (1982) to about the *istD (2003), Pentax made one too many truly ugly and cheap plastic cameras. The loss of design consistency and build quality over that period really degraded the brand, IMHO.

To be fair to Pentax though, some of the 1980's and 1990's Nikon and Canon bodies were also horrors of poor design and cheap materials.

[Rondec]

C'mon guys...this the same "(insert camera company) is doomed" talk that plagues every camera message board. Let me take that back...EVERY tech board (MS is doomed, apple is doomed, Chevy is doomed, samsung is doomed etc etc).

I don't think anyone wants Nikon to fail or thinks that it is guaranteed that they will. But at this point, they need (a) to get leaner -- which it sounds like they are planning to do, (b) not release so many cameras -- wait until there is some reason to release a new camera in a series rather than just grinding out more and more cameras to sell against yourself, and (c) diversify -- they need more than just camera/digital imaging focuses. Olympus and Pentax were carried by their medical departments for years. Canon and Ricoh obviously have a lot of interests that are far flung. But when 80 percent of your business is photography and the market flattens out, it is tough to make things work.