Nikon = hurting. (question mark changed to a period)

[ahsanford]

In crude terms: it all depends on which column the accountants put the numbers and when.

Spot on. Without getting into specifics, I am in a business that (broadly) sells nails and gives away hammers. The money from the nails underwrites the R&D/production/marketing/etc. of that nail as you'd expect, but it also covers the staggering cost of making sure that each customer always has a hammer at the ready. Every time someone I work with espouses a spruce goose sort of mega-premium product I remind them of that reality and always ask them to run the numbers before pushing such an idea.

I recognize this isn't Canon's business model (in imaging) for the most part. But each business -- like each market -- is different, and the devil's in the details. For all we know, Canon may actually be giving the 1DX2 away at cost given the lower production volumes and (I would imagine) much much higher quality and service expectations of that clientele. But someone probably ran the numbers and said they'd sell 20% more Rebels if the world thought they were the best at the most demanding forms of photography, so at-cost 1DX2's for everyone it is.

...or they are ripping off everyone with all 1D products like they are immaculate storytellers from Leica. ;D

We'll never know as we can't glimpse into the books, right? Has anyone at Canon ever gone on record to talk about which lines command what premiums?

- A

 

[Maximilian]

...
You understand, ... I mean, surely .. that QUOTIENT [margin] = DIVIDEND [price] divided by DIVISOR [cost].
...

Sorry to interrupt here, but even an engineer (me) knows, that finance math looks a little bit different.
So to make it more correct:

margin [absolute] = price - costs (of goods sold) (MINUS, not DIVISION)

Even if you want to get the percentage of margin your formula is wrong. Correct one:

(net profit) margin [percentage] = net profit/revenue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_margin

Or on the other hand:
Gross Margin [percentage] = (Revenue – Cost of goods sold) / Revenue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_margin

And as we do not have access to these values (net profit, cost of goods sold) for individual products of Canon this discussion and calculation is meaningless.

 

[Ozarker]

CanonFanBoy ... you nick says it all ...

Yes, i assume. So do you and you sound off here as well. You come across as a really pesty little nitpicker. Like those idiot small dogs barking up some tree ...

You just can't stand that the mind of this idiot small dog runs circles around your Slurpee mind and is smart enough to not lap it up as you are serving it. :

 

[AvTvM]

well, back to thread topic. Nikon is hurting. As far as their imaging business is concerned, reason seems pretty obvious: lack of mirrorless cameras and native lenses plus a totally unclear future perspective, no roadmap whatsoever.

Many of their customers are neither interested in Nikon dwarf-sensor Coolpix compacts any longer, nor in boring iterations of mirrorslappers nor in failed Nikon 1 system. Quite a few leaving for Sony and Fuji. Nothing in the entire Nikon lineup right now, that I would want to buy - even if I was starting out new, with no investment in Canon gear.

Demand is there. Supply is not. We got a business problem here. oO

But hey, Nikon is still profitable and keeps making loads of mirrorslapper cameras and F-mount lenses, so everything must be fine according to some people's "business logic". ;D

 

[Loswr]

But hey, Nikon is still profitable and keeps making loads of mirrorslapper cameras and F-mount lenses, so everything must be fine according to some people's "business logic". ;D

Canon ILC+lens unit sales gained 2%. Nikon ILC+lens unit sales dropped ~23% over the past year and their net sales revenue dropped ~29%. The latter doesn't sound fine to me. But what is clear is that whether you're speaking for yourself or putting words in other people's mouths, your 'business logic' is neither logical nor sound.

 

[3kramd5]

well, back to thread topic. Nikon is hurting. As far as their imaging business is concerned, reason seems pretty obvious: lack of mirrorless cameras and native lenses

Based on what?

 

[Mikehit]

Based on a belief that his needs reflect those of the wider camera market and that his disappointment provides an explanation of the death of Nikon.

 

[Ozarker]

Based on a belief that his needs reflect those of the wider camera market and that his disappointment provides an explanation of the death of Nikon.

Photo credit Japan Trends

 

[Woody]

Thom Hogan gives a pretty good write-up here:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-nikon-q3-financials.html

"...Every serious shooter I know—every darned one—wants a camera that works the same as, uses the same accessories as, and functions the same as their main DSLR camera. But it must be compact and thus able to fit in a small bag or even a jacket pocket so as to be carried everywhere.

Right now, Nikon DSLR users are picking non-Nikon products to do that with. So the compact camera they choose doesn’t work the same, doesn’t use the same accessories, and doesn’t produce the same results. Not. What. They. Want. Not what I want, either...

Look at Canon: we’re slowly seeing them develop into a 1”, APS mirrorless, APS and full frame DSLRs range of cameras that work similarly, use the same accessories, and produce similar results (DIGIC)...

Where we are with Nikon is this:
- An FX line that sells modestly well (and decently against Canon), has mostly strong choices, and is probably on a standard iteration schedule now.
- A DX line that is starting to sell less well—especially at the low end—and doesn’t have a full set of lenses so can’t defend against crop-sensor mirrorless (buzz buzz). But at least iteration is on a regular schedule again.
- No mirrorless line with a reasonable-sized sensor.
- A mirrorless “line” with the smallest sensor, an odd set of lenses, that doesn’t use DSLR accessories, that is overpriced to the competition, which Nikon doesn’t promote any more, and which most dealers won’t stock.
- No serious compact line.
- Action cameras (KeyMission) that really aren’t doing well, which were late to market with too little, and which rely on software that is flakey and immature, at best.
- Some random Coolpix, most of which have no real visibility in the photography market, and certainly none of which match up with Nikon’s DSLR strengths. I’ve written before that Coolpix was hurting Nikon’s brand reputation, and now that’s especially true.

Last week I offered my product plan for Nikon. That was an attempt to fix the things that Nikon already offers. But if Nikon really wants to shrink and do everything right in a new smaller corporate size, then the plan is far simpler:

- Continue with FX as I suggested.
- Rationalize DX fast. Three cameras, build out full lens set.
- Create a DX mirrorless that replaces the D3400. Use DSLR-like controls, accessories, performance. Lens road map absolutely necessary.
- Create what the DLs would have been: one, two, or three serious compacts that are as close to the above three lines, but compact in size and high in performance. Add an AW model.
- Kill KeyMission.
- Kill Coolpix.
- Kill Nikon 1.

But the downside to downsizing is this: every product has to be dead on for that to work. That means that Nikon needs to understand their customers better, and get better feedback on what is and isn’t important. It means that we can’t have more repeats of the D600, D750, or D800 QC problems. It means that we need road maps for lenses. It means that things like SnapBridge have to actually work when they come out. Support has to be there, and marketing has to be on target."

 

[Aglet]

Hmmm... Maybe Nikon's gear is just so darn good that all those who bought it within the last few years aren't compelled to upgrade in (Canon-user-like) hope that the newer model will provide better IQ. ;D

That's certainly the case for me; my d800s still deliver so well that the minuscule improvements are not worth the bother. Same with the crop bodies with the exception of the new D500 beast. But if you have a 7100 or 7200... few need what the 500 adds. Even the d5x00 bodies are extremely capable if you don't need weather-sealing or really high frame rates.

There seems to be a constant stream of Canon upgraders in good volumes, hoping to get better gear, improve their skills, maybe discover they want even better gear, keep buying the same brand... still hoping for more... I'm glad I got off that gear-train.

As discussed earlier in this thread, however, Nikon's overall product lineup, is a bit muddled. That certainly doesn't help business.

Very good IQ, small size, style and shooting ability are also available in some of the ML products available from MFT mfrs and others. The sales in this area may be getting a bit soft for the big players when you have Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji angling in that low to mid market along with those infernal smart-phones with ever-better imaging abilities.

Canon is still irony-in-action; produce and sell vast quantities of sub-par product, still hailed as the leader.
At least their IQ is starting to close the gap with the competition in the last year+.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Neuro, how about sticking to topic of thread? Or answer to postings?

Rather than just INCESSANTLY launching "ad hominem" attacks on me? Is attempted CYBER BULLYING really all you can? :

I think you are perceived as a reincarnation of Dilbert!

Jack

 

[AvTvM]

Neuro, how about sticking to topic of thread? Or answer to postings?

Rather than just INCESSANTLY launching "ad hominem" attacks on me? Is attempted CYBER BULLYING really all you can? :

I think you are perceived as a reincarnation of Dilbert!
Jack

Off topic. But just for the record: no, I am not Dilbert. And I give Jack all about some forum members' "perceptions" and their incessant personal attacks and attempts to bully me. I know what I know. And I say what I want to say. Deal with it. I have to deal with Canon Defense League too ... ;D

 

[Mikehit]

Off topic. But just for the record: no, I am not Dilbert. And I give Jack all about some forum members' "perceptions" and their incessant personal attacks and attempts to bully me. I know what I know. And I say what I want to say. Deal with it. I have to deal with Canon Defense League too ... ;D

The problem is, what you claim to 'know' is often unsupportable, and is little more than opinion; then based on that 'opinion' you make claims that Canon do not know what they are doing in the camera market. You would get more kudos if you acknowledged it was opinion, and that the feature sets you propose were a wishlist and not some panacea to ensure Canon's survival.

The Canon Defence League is a figment of your imagination. While I (and others I presume) think your proposed features are either something that would be nice, we also make an effort to understand the reason they are not in there yet and may not be in the near future. By your logic, a psychologist who tries to understand psychopaths agrees with what serial killers do...which patently ludicrous.

 

[Maximilian]

Off topic. But just for the record: no, I am not Dilbert. And I give Jack all about some forum members' "perceptions" and their incessant personal attacks and attempts to bully me. I know what I know. And I say what I want to say. Deal with it. I have to deal with Canon Defense League too ... ;D

The problem is, what you claim to 'know' is often unsupportable, and is little more than opinion; then based on that 'opinion' you make claims that Canon do not know what they are doing in the camera market. You would get more kudos if you acknowledged it was opinion, and that the feature sets you propose were a wishlist and not some panacea to ensure Canon's survival.

The Canon Defence League is a figment of your imagination. While I (and others I presume) think your proposed features are either something that would be nice, we also make an effort to understand the reason they are not in there yet and may not be in the near future. By your logic, a psychologist who tries to understand psychopaths agrees with what serial killers do...which patently ludicrous.

+1
Well spoken, Mike.

 

[AvTvM]

The Canon Defence League is a figment of your imagination. While I (and others I presume) think your proposed features are either something that would be nice, we also make an effort to understand the reason they are not in there yet and may not be in the near future.

Yes, this is the very definition of "Canon Defense League" people.

Basically dumb customers who are always APOLOGIZING Canon, always exculpating, always explaining "why this might not be possible and that might not be possible" ... while other companies are implementing those very "impossible" features and solutions in their products left and right.

Rather than PUSHING Canon to not constantly nerf, cripple and "marketing differentiate" the products they want us to buy. But instead deliver truly "industry leading, innovative, class-leading equipment"... or at least "fully competitive" ... at every level and price point!

Just as one example: why ze f*ck is there still no Canon Eye Control AF Mk. II in your beloved Canon digital mirrorslappers? Or in EOS M5 EVF? Canon has the patents, it would be useful with every capture we take [for almost? everybody] and a truly unique sales proposition. Why not? Cannot be done? Would be too expensive?? Whimper, whimper, whimper. Apologize, apologize, apologize ... *stupid* Canon!

 

[Mikehit]

Basically dumb customers who are always APOLOGIZING Canon, always exculpating, always explaining "why this might not be possible and that might not be possible" ... while other companies are implementing those very "impossible" features and solutions in their products left and right.

Explaining why we think they have not installed a technology is not the same as apologising. To continue my analogy, does a psychologist apologise for the actions of a serial killer? Nope.
Who said we were talking about 'impossible' technologies? Canon had DPAF, other companies don't - does that make them dumb? No, it means they have given different technology a different priority. That is all. Sony have a great product but reputationally appalling after sales service - does that make them stupid? Ask Sony the cost impact on their products if they chose to offer the same level of customer service.

Canon have concentrated on improving and evolving what they do have, Sony concentrated on taking great leaps forward. The market decides which is more successful and the market suggests Canon have got it right.

Note here I am talking about relative rates of improvement - tortoise and hare. You cannot deny that while Sony took great leaps in some respects, Canon are catching up. They will get there and all we are talking about is when.
Your argument is that because they are not doing it now they obviously don't know what they are doing. I disagree, and (it seems) so does the market.

Rather than PUSHING Canon to not constantly nerf, cripple and "marketing differentiate" the products they want us to buy.

Are you saying Canon are listening to me and using my comments as a reason to not develop new technologies?
Perhaps I should charge them for my marketing nous because they clearly aren't listening to you

But instead deliver truly "industry leading, innovative, class-leading equipment"... or at least "fully competitive" ... at every level and price point!

They will. it is a matter of when. I understand why they are not doing so. You refuse to accept there is any possible reason (financial or technological or talent) as to why they have not done it already.
But Canon are competitive at every price point. The technology has advanced so much so quickly that 999/1000 people will never use the full capacity of any camera. Most photographers are happy with the image on their cell phone. I doubt very much that if I showed you a photos of the same scene you would be able to tell me if it was a Sony A7RII, or a Canon 5DIV. I doubt you would even be able to tell me reliably if I showed you those two photos side by side.

This means it is all about compromises...and people prefer Canon's compromises to Sony's. Canon win. Smart Canon.

There have been numerous threads here and other fora discussing Nikon's financial stability and the rationality of their range; or about whether Sony even want to stay in the camera market. The only think I read about Canon is how successful they are. They are clearly balancing the competing needs of innovation, releasing only models that work, and meeting market needs. Smart Canon.

Just as one example: why ze f*ck is there still no Canon Eye Control AF Mk. II in your beloved Canon digital mirrorslappers?

Because it is a 'nice to have' and when they did have it there were issues with it. Quite a lot of people who remember it are interested but no-one I have read is saying it is a high priority, and if it is not a high priority for the buyer, why would Canon give it a high priority? Type 'Canon eye control' to your search engine and there are many threads asking why they have not resurrected it and a few that explain its shortcomings.


Question: which non-mirror-slappers have eye control? Where is the market imperative to give it priority?
Oh, yes, the same market imperative that you believe exists with developing a mirrorless camera when you admit that every other mirrorless manufactuter had messed it up.
Compromises....

Or in EOS M5 EVF?
Canon has the patents, it would be useful with every capture we take [for almost? everybody] and a truly unique sales proposition. Why not? Cannot be done? Would be too expensive?? Whimper, whimper, whimper. Apologize, apologize, apologize ... *stupid* Canon!

I don't know. Ask them.
But the M5 seems to be selling well without it so a likely explanation is that they don't think it is needed. And if it sells it means it meets the needs of the target market, so what is 'stupid' about the decision they made?

As I said above, you come up with some good questions and suggestions but in the next breath morph that into a comment that Cano are stupid for not incorporating them. It is that inability to think beyond your own selfish (and I use the word in its strict sense) needs and your clear business incompetence that draws the flak.


When the 'Canon Defence League' meets the 'I want it now but haven't got a f**** clue' I think rationality will win.

 

[AvTvM]

apologists ... all the way. ;D

 

[Loswr]

...my d800s still deliver so well that the minuscule improvements are not worth the bother. Same with the crop bodies with the exception of the new D500 beast. But if you have a 7100 or 7200... few need what the 500 adds. Even the d5x00 bodies are extremely capable if you don't need weather-sealing or really high frame rates.

There seems to be a constant stream of Canon upgraders in good volumes, hoping to get better gear, improve their skills, maybe discover they want even better gear, keep buying the same brand...

So, in essence, you're saying that Canon offers improvements that are sufficiently impactful to tempt users to upgrade, while Nikon offers only minor improvements that aren't that very attractive to users.

Smart Canon.

 

[Loswr]

As I said above, you come up with some good questions and suggestions but in the next breath morph that into a comment that Cano are stupid for not incorporating them. It is that inability to think beyond your own selfish (and I use the word in its strict sense) needs and your clear business incompetence that draws the flak.

When the 'Canon Defence League' meets the 'I want it now but haven't got a f**** clue' I think rationality will win.

+1

Rationality does win…in the real world. However, when someone is so delusional that they believe their personal opinion represents that of millions despite ample evidence to the contrary, and that they know more about running a major corporation than those actually doing it successfully, it's clear that for that individual, rationality has already been tossed out the window.

 

[AvTvM]

hehe, i wil just sit back and see, which of those *oh so infallible* corporations follows Nokia and Kodak next ...