Nikon Cancels Their Unreleased Line of High End Compacts

[AvTvM]

Canon's DSLR APS-C lineup definitely needs streamlining.

There are really only 3 market segments for it and 3 distinct price points:

(A) 499 $/€ - low price / entry point
for all n00bs believing "that only with a DSLR you can capture really good images". Make it cheap USD/€ 499 with kit lens, make it small, make it light; flippy LCD crucial as well as [low end] 4k video .
2 cycles [SL-2 / 2017, SL-3 / 2019], then transfer to EOS-M mirrorless lineup

(B) 999 $/€ - fully competitive, "enthusiast" model
buyers who generally know why they want a well-performing DSLR, are happy with APS-C sensor and willing & able to spend a grand for body only, with Kit-zoom anywhere from 1099 to 1499. With 4k video of course, flippy LCD, body size like EOS 77D, build quality/features like 80D = Canon EOS 90D.

(C) 1999 $/€ - Hi-performance for Semi-/Pros
buyers know, what they want: top-notch performance in a professional-grade APS-C DSLR, mainly for "reach". Best possible sensor and AF system, tough build, full weather sealing, fully articulated LCD. Video less important. "Body only" below 2 grand - for significant percentage of updaters, upgraders from (A + B) and newcomers to Canon system.
2 more generations [7D III / 2018, 7D IV - 2021], then transfer to EOS M / EOS X

Done. Streamlined portfolio. Saved 60% of manufacturing, logistics and marketing expense over entire Canon APS-C DSLR lineup. Please invest savings into mirrorless EOS M and EOS X [FF] systems. Thanks!

 

[Tugela]

Canon needs to do the same, they face tha same quandry, but have more money to invest. The "M" seems to be gaining traction.

It's good to see Canon making better mirrorless.

Many claimed there is low to no demand on FF mirrorless, therefore, Canon doesn't make one. I wonder, if Canon already have this technology(body + lenses) on hand? or Canon feels they might lose sale in DSLR and EF lenses. Although these two products are not apple Vs apple, still, it could affect company profits, current DSLR users and future purchase decisions.

I'm sure they have quite a few prototypes locked a vault somewhere. They own the DSLR market virtually outright by comparison, and have the most celebrated line of glass. If they can figure out way to use existing L glass on FF MILC without having to make the body much bulkier, maybe they will.

But for their vast audience of professional users, DSLRs still seem to be preferred. I mean, look at all those MILC bodies on the sidelines of the Superbowl last weekend...

The M seems to have filled a gap for them for now and without even trying, they became the #3 MILC company. And look how few lenses they have for it! Imagine having to ramp up yet another whole new line of FF L glass. I'm sure they prefer not to be stretched too thin for their tastes.
[/quote]

The driving force in mirrorless cameras will be the trend to hybrids and the adoption of 4K. At the moment Canon do not have processors fast enough to be able to compete in the consumer segment of that market. That is why they don't, it not because FF MILCs don't sell, it is because they don't have competitive technology, so they choose not to compete.

 

[Tugela]

What can I say? ???

Not everyone wants mirrorless cameras to be tiny.
Not everyone wants to pay dearly for quality a little better than point and shoot.
Not everyone that a lot of AF points, but just that they work well.
Not everyone likes compact premium cameras.
Not everyone raises shadows 5 stops, in ISO100.
Not everyone hates Canon.

And.. Not everyone wants to carry around another camera when they have one in their phone..


In all seriousness Nikon and Canon both could reduce their point and shoot line down to 3 major camera models and it would not hurt their sales as a whole. Matter of fact it would make them more money since there would be a huge saving on manufacturing cost.

For example when you look at Canons ELPH line (which I like). They have models from a 150 IS to the 350 HS. The average consumer has no clue or gives a crap about all the fine detail in the features. They want to know 2 things. How many MegaPixels does it have and do they have it in Blue or Red.. Seriously.. We only need one ELPH...

Since the electronics inside those cameras are probably identical, they don't lose much by putting out superficially different models with aspects disabled/crippled to cover the market. The only thing that is different is the shell, and I am sure they can change that with fairly minimal cost.

 

[LDS]

They want to know 2 things. How many MegaPixels does it have and do they have it in Blue or Red..

Actually it's 3. The third one is "what's the price?" That's why you see more than one model. Price segmentation work and can actually increase profits.

Some may also ask about the zoom - and zoom and phones don't play well together still.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon's DSLR APS-C lineup definitely needs streamlining.

There are really only 3 market segments for it and 3 distinct price points:

<snip>

Done.

Well, your post sure needed streamlining.

How is it that Canon consistently does the opposite of what you suggest, and yet continues to gain market share?

 

[JoeDavid]

Some may also ask about the zoom - and zoom and phones don't play well together still.

With the 7Plus, Apple does (sort of). They included two 12MP cameras, one with their usual wide angle lens and a second with a 2x lens that get them to something close to the "normal" lens. Not really a zoom but at least you aren't stuck with just a wide angle camera and digital zoom and the image quality is quite good. I don't expect cell phone cameras to ever replace my interchangeable lens cameras due to the versatility that you just can't get in that form factor (ever seen a TSE lens on a cell phone?) but any camera I have with me on a normal, "non-photography" day or trip is better than the thousands of dollars of equipment I left at home 8) .

 

[slclick]

The upper tier can have fewer choices as those spending more can usually spend well, more. Those spending less need more price points to allow for a choice to be in every hundred or two hundred price point. Something for everyone. Something to save for and something for every budget. I can understand the FF=3 bodies concept but there really needs to be at least 6-10 in the crop/rebel line.

 

[LDS]

With the 7Plus, Apple does (sort of). They included two 12MP cameras, one with their usual wide angle lens and a second with a 2x lens that get them to something close to the "normal" lens.

They're looking for ways to get something better than digital zooms, still in a thin package. Because there are still enough people who still need some zoom for the children sport events, the ceremony, the recital, the animal far away in the park, etc. etc. Even "millenialls" may get past the selfie syndrome one day...

 

[AvTvM]

3 crop DSLRs + 4 mirrorless crop cameras would really be plenty. With brick and mortar stores disappearing, it it should be less important, how many meters of shelf space one can fill with "different" products.
I don't believe more than 499 / 599 / 1999 price points need to be catered to.

Butr, Canon is spending millions on market research and they sell more cameras and lenses every single day ... ;D

 

[LDS]

I don't believe more than 499 / 599 / 1999 price points need to be catered to.

Why? If 899 cameras, for example, sell, without them most people would probably buy the 599 one and not the 1999. Probably Canon has higher margins on the more expensive cameras, thereby "filling" more price points pays out. In the lower end P&S market probably even a 50 difference matters to potential buyers. If assembling slightly different models doesn't require much changes on the assembly line, it becomes mostly a problem of aligning the production and delivery to actual market demand.

 

[AvTvM]

most people able and willing to spend 899 will also be able and willing to spend 999. majority of 899 people will not settle for a lower specced product at 599.

cost of a spread out, minutely differentiated and in some cases even artificially nerfed product portfolio is not to be underestimated. keeeping things simple and straightforward pays off handsomely in many ways. research, parts/procurement, manufacturing, quality control, logistics, marketing, market perception, warranty repairs, sevice centers etc. ... along the entire value chain.

 

[3kramd5]

Not even being able to get 3 simple 1" compacts made in over a year, does not bode well for Nikon's ability to develop and launch a winning mirrorless ILC system [APS-C and FF sensor].

As if that's somehow the yardstick for success...

 

[scyrene]

Frankly, there's not much exciting happening in the world of ICL cameras period. IMHO, the most interesting camera innovation is happening with cellphones.

Phone cameras are starting from a much lower base in terms of image quality and flexibility, so it's no surprise they are improving faster. And they benefit from orders of magnitude higher volumes sold, and lightning improvements in computing power.

I don't expect to be excited, though I still am by some products - I want my cameras to be able to produce the best image quality consistently, in conditions that mobile phones have no chance. Ruggedness and reliability are not sexy, but they are crucial to a lot of higher-end ILC users. And for most purposes, the image quality of phones simply isn't there compared to dedicated cameras - not yet.

 

[Tugela]

most people able and willing to spend 899 will also be able and willing to spend 999. majority of 899 people will not settle for a lower specced product at 599.

cost of a spread out, minutely differentiated and in some cases even artificially nerfed product portfolio is not to be underestimated. keeeping things simple and straightforward pays off handsomely in many ways. research, parts/procurement, manufacturing, quality control, logistics, marketing, market perception, warranty repairs, sevice centers etc. ... along the entire value chain.

You are aware that maintaining a myriad of apparently similar (and often literally the same) products at different price points/marketing targets is common practice for companies that manufacture consumer products right?

When I was a student I had a summer job at a company that made paint. They had over the years bought smaller companies and maintained the brands in order to cater to brand loyalty. I remember being on the factory floor during our orientation week and watching a batch of paint being prepared. A giant vat was poured into X cans of a cheap brand name product and Y cans of a premium brand name product - both were literally identical even though you paid twice as much for brand Y.

This is common practice in consumer marketing, and it costs a lot less than you think.

 

[NancyP]

There was a reasonable amount of interest in the 18-50mm equivalent DL among landscape photographers. This range was unique among 1" compacts.