[reh321]

Nikon Says Its Cameras Need to Justify Their Existence as a Business

Conclusion: "The goal of all this? To 'generate enough profits to justify [Imaging Products’] existence as a business unit.' In other words, Nikon cameras and lenses need to start contributing to Nikon’s bottom line again instead of weighing it down."

[ChristianRock]

Well they just made an investment in a brand new mount, so of course profits will be down.

All their R&D money is going towards a system that is not selling (yet at least). The lens offering especially, is being seen as expensive and not quite as attractive as what is available for Sony (also seen as expensive) and Canon (even more expensive but at least some innovation and excitement like the 28-70 f2 lens and the new 50 1.2 which are getting rave reviews). Though there's certainly people excited about the Z mount and lenses, especially those who have actually used them. IQ is supposedly super-top-notch - but still, the photography sites and forums haven't been quite as excited from what I can tell.

They haven't released any DSLRs since the D3500 a year and a half ago. Before that, the D850 is now two and a half years old, the D7500 will be 3 years old early next year and the D500 will be 4 years old (good grief, has it been that long?????? time is just flying!!!!!). The D750 is well over 5 years old now*. And DSLRs still bring home the bacon.

The message is clear: they invested all into a new system, and if that new system doesn't sell, they're out of the photography business.


*I am aware that these are all still perfectly good and capable cameras, but the geek mob wants bigger/better specs all the time. Unfortunately this whole "cult of spec numbers" is prevalent in a lot of the photography forums and websites.

[bobell69]

I happen to know four people who have shifted from Nikon DSLRs to the new Nikon Z Mounts and they seem quite pleased with them. I don't know of any of my Canon friends who have shifted to mirrorless Canon bodies.

[ffking]

You have to be very careful about pruning your offering - a lot of people don't buy Pentax because of what it doesn't offer, whether they currently want it or not, despite the fact that what Pentax does offer is mostly very good with increasingly common patches of excellence.

[Adam]

I find it interesting that the last slide talks about lens lineup expansions. Seems like that would be the last thing Nikon needs right now.

[Rondec]

It feels like there are too many mounts out there. You have all of the legacy mounts -- K mount, F mount, alpha mount, and EOS, plus probably a bunch I haven't thought of. Then you add in all of the mirrorless offerings -- FE mount, Z mount, EOS-M mount, Fuji Mount, EOS-R mount, micro four thirds and L mount.

That's a lot of different ways to stick a lens on a camera. Unfortunately, many of the new mounts are going to have slow going. Most of the people who were seriously interested in mirrorless went Sony or Olympus or Fuji a long time ago. Unless you come out with something that is truly revolutionary, you just end up being the third or fourth to the party, but it takes just as much money in R and D for you to launch your new camera line as it did for the first brands. It seems as though Nikon is paying that price. I'd be surprised if some of the L mount folks (particularly Panasonic and Sigma) don't feel some hurt as well.

My guess is Nikon will downsize a bit and end up with a company that can make money while selling in the teens in terms of market share.

[reh321]

I happen to know four people who have shifted from Nikon DSLRs to the new Nikon Z Mounts and they seem quite pleased with them. I don't know of any of my Canon friends who have shifted to mirrorless Canon bodies.

My friend who switched did so from a D5600, so he switched both size of sensor and technology. I think he made the technology switch because it is the "newest"; I am fairly sure he made the switch at all because I had shown him how gracefully my $700 KP handles higher ISO values.

[mlt]

Lens mount user questions continue in both the Nikon and Canon houses. Nikon now has limited DX specific lenses in both F and Z mounts, along with their FX series F and Z mounts. Canon has limited APSC EF S and EF M mount lenses, along with their EF and R mount full frame lineups. Both obviously want their users to buy more full frame capable lenses for whatever reason. Nikon's DX lenses in either mount can at least be directly used used on their respective full frame bodies.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

It's a mad house in the camera industry right now. Everyone's running like chickens with their heads cut off. Hahaha!

But yeah. We'll see what happens with Nikon & the rest once the dust settles.

[Kozlok]

When the big meteor hit, the big-boys all vanished leaving the tiny mammals to inherit this earth. I think the massive dinosaurs may be doomed again.

[surfar]

They sold 4.6% of m/l cameras in 2018....last place,Pentax Q was below last place!

$$$ony claimed first spot with 42.5%.

Considering Nikon mirror less FF LAunched just over a year ago they havent done too badly.However,being "Nikon" they probably expected to do better

[rawr]

Considering Nikon mirror less FF LAunched just over a year ago they havent done too badly.However,being "Nikon" they probably expected to do better

I remember that between 2011 and 2018 Nikon also introduced, then abandoned, the 'Nikon 1' mirrorless camera series and lens mount, after producing about 6 different bodies for it, 13 lenses and a host of accessories.

I don't have much confidence about their ability to succeed with FF and APS-C mirrorless.

[TomB_tx]

The appealing thing about “mirrorless” - at least to an engineer - is the much simpler construction of the body. The IQ of either (SLR or ML) should be identical (if mirror vibration is handled). Although ML can have shallower body depth, a main appeal of that is to allow more legacy lenses to adapt to the body. That’s not really a plus to an optical company like Nikon, who traditionally makes more money on sales of lenses. For them the new mount could create demand for new lenses, but that is diluted by the need to lure customers by being able to adapt their existing lenses. With time the demand for improved new lenses should increase, and with a proprietary mount could mean only their lenses.
If the driving force for a new ML body were only to sell cameras, it would have made sense to keep the deep body depth and the existing Nikon mount.
If Pentax went mirrorless I’d prefer they went that way, keeping a compatible K mount and body depth. Then less investment in a new lens line.

[lesmore49]

Nikon had / has a full line of products...bodies, lenses, accessories in the DSLR lines and of course both in ASP-C and Full Frame. Then to bring out a Mirrorless line with the attendant full line of lenses, accessories. Expensive and I'm sure Nikon entered into Mirrorless to make sure they were competitive in whatever the future determines will be the dominant consumer choice...DSLR or Mirrorless.

Throughout history , many nations have lost wars by engaging into too many fronts at once. Is there a parallel in the camera business ? Has Nikon spread itself too thin...to remain potentially competitive in these uncertain times in the camera business ?

I've always liked Nikon products, although I've never had one. If Pentax hadn't existed, Nikon would of been my choice starting with the Nikon F Photomic back in the early '70's to the current line of Nikon DSLR FF cameras. This is a camera make that has a tremendous history and even now, offers some of the finest photographic equipment available.

[automorphism]

I think Nikon would be more appealing if they published an open lens mount specification, and made it even more open than Sony's E-mount (by publishing it under a creative commons license). Some of the latest lenses being put out by Sigma and Tamron look quite appealing!