[surfar]

I hope not-

Yes,there product is good but they need more buyers.

All the R&D dollars that went into the ONE series could have gone to FF and Crop,they backed the wrong horse there with the tiny sensor.

Perhaps the offshore manufacturing can turn them around? Or might it be too late.

But look on the bright sidewall the Pentax are doomed T shirts can now be scribbled out and NIKON can be inserted!

[clackers]

This is terrible news, but we were calling it two years ago, how vulnerable they were financially, and last year, that their camera sales dropped even after expensively developing a mirrorless platform. How will they get that money back? I think Beholder estimated that for every $3000 camera they sell they lose $500.

The whole industry is the poorer for if they close down the division, or more likely, sell it off to an investment fund to do a 'makeover' (Read: asset strip).

It doesn't make sense for another camera company to acquire them because the market as a whole is shrinking so a bank won't lend the money.

And this is not a reflection of their products, sure, that have had some hiccups, but also produced excellence.

[Rondec]

I don't think Nikon is done for, nor do I think that the reason for their fall is specifically due to late adoption of mirrorless tech.

I do think they adopted at the worst possible time. No one knew that the world's economy would tank because of COVID for the last year or so. Certainly that hasn't helped to move new cameras. At the same time, I think Canon did a much better job of differentiating their mirrorless line up from their SLR line up and in so doing stand out from Sony. The issue has more to do with special glass. If all you do is re-create the same lens line up with mirrorless that you have with your SLR lenses (and you offer an adapter to port over your SLR lenses seamlessly), folks have much less reason to buy lenses or even to move, if they are happy with their camera and lenses.

There is never really one factor that sinks a company or empire. Did Rome fall because of (a) plagues, (b) corruption in the government, (c) constant civil wars, (d) a lack of good leadership, or (e) the splitting of the empire? The answer is all of the above and more.

In the same way, Nikon was doing well when the going was easy, but now they are going to have to make some tough decisions in order to get their company back on stable footing. But they are a part of a bigger Japanese organization that will help them get set and I do think by the second half of the year the economy should be moving better and people will start to buy camera gear at a higher clip than they are currently.

[northcoastgreg]

Nikon's move into mirrorless appears to have been ill-advised. Yes, perhaps if they hadn't gotten in earlier, they might have done well (like Sony). But that's Monday Morning quarterbacking. In the early years of mirrorless, the general thought was that it would be a consumer orientated format, with DSLRs occupying the high-end space (the opposite turned out to be closer to the truth). Olympus and Sony were making high-end DSLRs, and they saw mirrorless as filling in the low-end. Hence all those low-end Pens and NEX's, often sans viewfinders and huge money losers in the market. In addition, in those days company's were trying to sell mirrorless on the basis of smaller size, and the potential of an FF mirrorless seemed go against this (because of the size of FF lenses). So neither Canon nor Nikon would have ever ventured in mirrorless FF territory. That would go against the prevailing view of mirrorless. Only after Sony's FF mirrorless venture gained serious traction in the market did Nikon and Canon decide they had to get in, but that took some time and Nikon became the odd man when they finally got it. It turned out (another popular misconception about mirrorless!) that there was a ceiling on FF mirrorless growth, so that once Sony and Canon had gorged on the market, there was little left for Nikon.


Despite, however, these bad losses, I think these reports of Nikon's demise are exaggerated. There are people on the internet that love to predict the demise of formats and companies, but their predictions rarely come true (or come true in a much longer time frame than originally predicted, as with Olympus). Nikon, unlike Olympus (or Pentax) has a huge user base. I see a lot more Nikons out in the wild than I do Sony's. But much of this user base is conservative and still using DSLRs. These people don't feel need to upgrade their camera every three or four years (which is eminently sensible, as the technology has plateaued). But at some point their cameras will give out and they'll need replacements. So all Nikon simply needs to do what Pentax (and currently Olympus) already has done: they need to go into maintenance mode. Take care of their user base, which is quite large. They can make a go of it, but they'll have to cut back on production and new product releases. We are entering a world where companies don't need to be coming out with a new model every year or two. The sensors aren't getting any better and hardly anyone needs cameras with 25 fps or 8000k video. Upgrading no longer makes sense, so companies like Nikon will have to focus on replacements for gear that gives out.

[RobA_Oz]

It would be a pity to see Nikon go under, although I do tend to take the tenor of these reports with a grain of journalistic hubris. There’s no escaping the financial facts, though, and it’s clear that Nikon has some serious work to do in improving sales – never mind the “flying off the shelves” anecdotes; they’re usually reserved for promoting cheap junk that nobody wants.

While it’s become somewhat tiresome to read the constant “my phone is better than your camera” assertions, I have to admit to being somewhat amazed when a relative of mine showed me what he could do with his iPhone 12 and its three cameras. For those who say that’s all very well for looking at photos on a small screen, you should try looking on a large monitor.

Anyway, it struck me that the major advantage that device (and some of its competitors, of course) has over stand-alone cameras is the power of the CPU and the investment in software to run on it. I am aware that computational imaging plays a large part in the quality of the images produced, but I often ask myself if I’m taking forensic records or making pictures for enjoyment. Nonetheless, perhaps the biggest threat to Nikon doesn't come from its competitors, but from the people who aren’t buying from them because their phones take photos that are more than good enough, possibly much more, and are far more convenient.

If that’s the case, they won’t be alone, but merely the second to go under because they were late to the realisation that the market was contracting faster than they could downsize, not because they lacked good product or were late to the correct mirrorless segment.

[dbs]

Who would have thought 20 yrs ago that a phone could replace a camera and a laptop ......... they all said its impossible.
Nikon is just next on the list ............ !

[Winder]

Despite, however, these bad losses, I think these reports of Nikon's demise are exaggerated.

If this was the first year that Nikon was stumbling I might agree, but Nikon has been falling behind now for 10 years. The Canon 5DII should have been the wake-up call for Nikon that video was going to change the industry..... Nikon was asleep at the wheel.

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

Not plugging for Tony, but every year he makes a video on Nikon's financial problems. Usually he's trying to convince people that Nikon is "fine"..... It's been a long slow fall and it doesn't look like Nikon is going to reverse the trend in the near future.

[tokyoscape]

It would be a pity to see Nikon go under, although I do tend to take the tenor of these reports with a grain of journalistic hubris. There’s no escaping the financial facts, though, and it’s clear that Nikon has some serious work to do in improving sales ...

Your comment remind me of a news on Bloomberg I read just a few days ago. It look likes Nikon has been switching to focus more on making money with their "Precision Equipment Business".
It already made more money than the camera business based on the article I read and Nikon own number in their Financial Highlights page.

I think/hope Nikon as a company will be doing OK, but they will have to do some radical change with the camera division to stop the bleeding.
Well, it's pretty much the same to almost every Japanese's camera maker except may be Sony.

[RobA_Oz]

Your comment remind me of a news on Bloomberg I read just a few days ago. It look likes Nikon has been switching to focus more on making money with their "Precision Equipment Business".
It already made more money than the camera business based on the article I read and Nikon own number in their Financial Highlights page.

I think/hope Nikon as a company will be doing OK, but they will have to do some radical change with the camera division to stop the bleeding.
Well, it's pretty much the same to almost every Japanese's camera maker except may be Sony.

If Ricoh’s bleeding from the Pentax division, it’ll only need a bandaid, rather than a tourniquet (let alone an amputation).

[Rondec]

Your comment remind me of a news on Bloomberg I read just a few days ago. It look likes Nikon has been switching to focus more on making money with their "Precision Equipment Business".
It already made more money than the camera business based on the article I read and Nikon own number in their Financial Highlights page.

I think/hope Nikon as a company will be doing OK, but they will have to do some radical change with the camera division to stop the bleeding.
Well, it's pretty much the same to almost every Japanese's camera maker except may be Sony.

Nikon really seems to have invested a lot of money in mirrorless. And yet, they have had a lot of missteps and are on version 2 of some of their initial releases.

Nikon doesn't seem able to sell many cameras at full price and instead, gear moves when there are big discounts or special bundles. It does feel like Olympus. Olympus sold a lot of gear, I just think their users grew accustomed to waiting for sale days and they didn't make money, or even lost some on the cameras.

[Serkevan]

Nikon really seems to have invested a lot of money in mirrorless. And yet, they have had a lot of missteps and are on version 2 of some of their initial releases.

Nikon doesn't seem able to sell many cameras at full price and instead, gear moves when there are big discounts or special bundles. It does feel like Olympus. Olympus sold a lot of gear, I just think their users grew accustomed to waiting for sale days and they didn't make money, or even lost some on the cameras.

The Z f/1.8 primes are, though very good from what I see, wholly... uninspiring. Nikon F-mount was already excellent. Who's gonna pay a grand to upgrade their 20/1.8 or their 85/1.8 by... a bit*? Canon has made massive, expensive f/1.2 primes, but those at least have a wow factor.


*Let's not put numbers on that. I'm sure that by pixel peeping standards they are measurably better, but I think the change from F to Z ain't gonna be what makes or breaks a picture.

[Winder]

Nikon makes great cameras and lenses. The problem that they are facing is that they are falling behind in terms of performance. Nikon does so many things right, but when you put the new Z7II or Z6II next to the Canon or Sony equivalents, Nikon is just a little bit behind. If Panasonic were to improve their AF they would be moving a head of Nikon. In many ways the Panasonic cameras are better than the Nikon options. Nikon makes excellent cameras that are more than capable of getting the job done and the lenses are really good. But Nikon is stuck in the middle of the pack with no real advantage over Canon and Sony. Nikon should have started to develop mirrorless technology much earlier. I'm hoping that Nikon, Panasonic, & Fuji can step it up and put more pressure on Canon and Sony.

[ffking]

he Canon 5DII should have been the wake-up call for Nikon that video was going to change the industry..... Nikon was asleep at the wheel.

That's all true, but it's also no co-incidence that the companies with the best video implementation - Canon, Sony, Panasonic, are also the ones that make professional video cameras - Nikon, and Ricoh just don't have that background support for their cameras.

[bdery]

Canon eating Sony alive however.

Humm, let's be careful with those statements. Sony apparently took back the lead in mirrorless in Japan. So I doubt anyone is eating anyone else.

If I was a Sony owner, I'd be concerned about not having the best autofocus anymore.

That made me laugh! We're using Pentax, this has never worried us all that much! I'm also a Sony user, and AF has not become worse since others made improvements. Bragging rights are the only thing which could get challenged if that statement was objectively true.

[repaap]

Nikon did get BRAW video for their latest of cameras, so they wanted some help to get it done properly. First round was miserable for Nikon and canon. it is just that Canon has bigger userbase, which many went to Sony. This is why there is both of these products. Canon, as has been said has been video centric for a long now( I have old 8mm film camera from Canon for example). Where Canon had to compete and made right choise was that they make their own sensors and they did not cripple their recent cameras R6&5. Nicon did a lot of work afterward, which should have been done at first round and that was a mistake. Too rushed. But will it knock them down? not so sure about it. Lates Z6&7 II looks about right and next should be even better. Many present Nikon users might be looking for those. and next DSLR. Different story for Canon. Nt sure hows Panasonic is doing. They did offer S5 and this is propably based on feedback from S1. Terrible AF, great video. Is that going to knock them over? no.