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

[ScottyP]

I think it is a bad sign that Nikon has given up developing its own sensors for its DSLR's, and allows its up and coming competitor Sony to supply its sensors. I do not claim to be a business genius, but I read history and collect some antiques. The first step towards oblivion of many companies is not uncommonly the act of gutting your creative innovative side and simply rebranding other people's products as your own. If Nikon lose the ability to make cameras without Sony, are they really a stand-alone camera company anymore? What if Sony decides to end its practice of propping Nikon up with sensors, and Nikon no longer has the capability of resuming production of state of the art sensors?

 

[ScottyP]

I think it is a bad sign that Nikon has given up developing its own sensors for its DSLR's, and allows its up and coming competitor Sony to supply its sensors. I do not claim to be a business genius, but I read history and collect some antiques. The first step towards oblivion of many companies is not uncommonly the act of gutting your creative innovative side and simply rebranding other people's products as your own. If Nikon lose the ability to make cameras without Sony, are they really a stand-alone camera company anymore? What if Sony decides to end its practice of propping Nikon up with sensors, and Nikon no longer has the capability of resuming production of state of the art sensors?

And it makes me happy that despite all the trolling b1+ching about Canon-made sensors being a bit behind SoNikon in DR, my investment in lenses is still backed up by a vital and viable legitimate camera company producing new Canon sensors in their bodies. They used to whine about Nikon having higher MP but Canon shut them down, didn't they?

 

[ahsanford]

I think it is a bad sign that Nikon has given up developing its own sensors for its DSLR's, and allows its up and coming competitor Sony to supply its sensors. I do not claim to be a business genius, but I read history and collect some antiques. The first step towards oblivion of many companies is not uncommonly the act of gutting your creative innovative side and simply rebranding other people's products as your own. If Nikon lose the ability to make cameras without Sony, are they really a stand-alone camera company anymore? What if Sony decides to end its practice of propping Nikon up with sensors, and Nikon no longer has the capability of resuming production of state of the art sensors?

Nikon still makes sensors, it's just that (of late) Sony has made better ones that Nikon chose to use in many of their rigs -- I think a lot of Canon people would have wished Canon had done the same the last few years. But, to my knowledge, Nikon's flagship D5 sensor is their own, and it's possible that the D500 sensor is also from Nikon (I continue to search for a definitive yea or nea on that, please forward if you have that link).

Keep in mind that Canon buys other folks' sensors as well, just not in their bread and butter SLR space. I believe one of their lines of higher end compacts uses a Sony sensor (I don't follow that market enough to ID the model, forgive me).

I personally wouldn't knock Nikon's level of sensor innovation -- I think they acquit themselves quite well (at least quality/value/performance wise) in the SLR space. Remember, they didn't exactly buy cut-rate sensors, they bought the best available on the market.

I would, however, knock their mirrorless strategic decision making. The Nikon 1 sensor size call was an unmitigated disaster unless a boatload of sales have been misfiled into the compact (non-interchangeable) camera segment that I haven't heard about. I don't want to hazard a guess on the total dollar impact of trying and failing so spectacularly. Besides all the R&D, excess/obsolescence, marketing, etc. that will be lost, they critically spun their wheels for a few years and lost even more time on the competition. Their work is certainly cut out for them.

- A

 

[docsmith]

I believe one of their lines of higher end compacts uses a Sony sensor (I don't follow that market enough to ID the model, forgive me).

The 1" sensors in the G5X, G7X II, and G9X, for example, are Sony sensors.

I will say, I actually do see ScottyP's point. For the DSLR market space, everything Canon had was theirs while Nikon contracted out a rather significant element, the sensor, to Sony. I have no real numbers but I suspect the real issue there was that Canon could make sensors cheaper than Nikon could buy them, thus, Canon's profits were better making them a stronger company.

At least from my perspective, Nikon's a bit all over the place. They have the loyal fan base, great. They have had some stellar lens releases (105 f/1.4, new 70-200 f/2.8, etc) but then some that may be upgrades to their lineup but lack compared to the rest of the industry (80-400, 24-70 f/2.8, etc).

Then, they have an intro lineup (Coolpix) and a premium lineup (FX DSLRs), but not much in the middle. No premium P&Ss, no mirrorless, etc. A couple of very loyal Nikon shooters I know have gone to other brands for those body types.

So, I actually hope their strategy works out for them. I think the market is a better place with Nikon in it. But I also do not regret my choice of Canon.

 

[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.

Neuro, that's a great example of quoting out of context by using selective quoting to try to depict the opposite of the original statement.
Did you get practice in this skill by working for politicians or big-pharma?..

No, I didn't depict the opposite at all. I'm a scientist, and I'm used to distilling away rhetoric and opinion to reveal the underlying data. I just reduced your statements to the essentials. But since I know some people lack the necessary metacognitive ability to separate themselves from their biases, I'll rephrase your statements in accordance with your biases:

Nikon makes superawesomefantastic dSLRs that are so amazingly incredibly stellar, that are packed with so many wonderfully astounding features, that have such superlatively stunning performance, and that use such futuristically advanced cutting edge technology that when they release an updated model, they're only able to make very small improvements. So, once you make the brilliantly intelligent decision to buy a Nikon dSLR, you never need to buy another one. Therefore, Nikon users don't upgrade and Nikon sells fewer dSLRs.

Canon makes poor, sub-par, really abysmally terrible dSLRs that are so stinkily crappy they can barely take a decent picture. Once you make the idiotically foolish decision to buy one, you are locked into a viscous cycle and forced to frequently buy new iterations of Canon dSLRs in the vain hope that doing so will give you a little bit better performance and make your pictures ever so slightly less sucky. Therefore, Canon users upgrade all the time and Canon sells more dSLRs.

Smart Canon.

 

[Woody]

No, I didn't depict the opposite at all. I'm a scientist, and I'm used to distilling away rhetoric and opinion to reveal the underlying data. I just reduced your statements to the essentials. But since I know some people lack the necessary metacognitive ability to separate themselves from their biases, I'll rephrase your statements in accordance with your biases:

Nikon makes superawesomefantastic dSLRs that are so amazingly incredibly stellar...

Canon makes poor, sub-par, really abysmally terrible dSLRs that are so stinkily crappy they can barely take a decent picture... Therefore, Canon users upgrade all the time and Canon sells more dSLRs.

Thumbs up! Yup, that's how I interpreted Aglet's post too.

Unfortunately, that does not explain Nikon's complete absence in the field of MILCs... the total failure of their KyeMission and Nikon 1 offerings... the horrible horrible QC of multiple Nikon FF cameras (D600, D750 and D800)...

I am more inclined to trust Thom Hogan's assessment than Aglet's chest beating post...

 

[ahsanford]

Back to the original topic :, there's been a development of sorts worth looking at:

https://petapixel.com/2017/02/25/nikon-speaks-will-focus-medium-high-end-dslrs-lenses/

That's either...

a) ...a calm-the-waters reassuring statement to keep longtime enthusiasts and pros in the fold after a financial bombshell, or

b) ...a major tell of things to come.

Conspicuously absent on that list of what they'll focus on would be the core vanilla SLR that we presume keeps the lights on at Nikon just as it does at Canon. Are they saying that market is lost, eroding, or soon-to-be unprofitable to compete in?

In my often made statement that 'mirrorless will (eventually) consume SLRs, starting from the bottom of the portfolio and moving to the top', is a lack of focus on entry level SLRs potentially a tell that Nikon sees that happening sooner rather than later?

(I kind of love reading corporate tea leaves. )

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Several Japanese news outlets published an article based on an interview with Nikon executives. Here are the key points from a Google translation (if you have a better translation, please post it in the comments section):
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/24/nikon-we-plan-to-concentrate-on-medium-and-high-end-dslr-and-mirrorless-cameras-and-lenses.aspx/#more-110659

The Nikon camera business is undergoing a major restructuring.
This is a quote: "bringing in multiple mirrorless cameras at an early stage" - to me this means announcing multiple mirrorless cameras soon.
Nikon is taking an aggressive approach to rebuild their camera business.
Nikon has no plans for closing domestic or overseas manufacturing plants at the present time.
In the future Nikon will concentrate their resources on medium to high-end DSLR cameras and lenses as well as mirrorless cameras.
Nikon will have fewer models in the future.
Nikon still wants to develop a high-end compact camera.

too late ... ;D ;D ;D

 

[3kramd5]

In the future Nikon will concentrate their resources on medium to high-end DSLR cameras and lenses as well as mirrorless cameras.

too late ... ;D ;D ;D

It's too late to concentrate resources on... a mirrorless camera? Great, when will you stop asking Canon to?

 

[AvTvM]

In the future Nikon will concentrate their resources on medium to high-end DSLR cameras and lenses as well as mirrorless cameras.

too late ... ;D ;D ;D

It's too late to concentrate resources on... a mirrorless camera? Great, when will you stop asking Canon to?

too late for Nikon. Canon at least launched EOS M / EF-M series and is getting "closer to fully competitive" with M5/M6. Nikon ... mirrorless .. zilch!

 

[Loswr]

too late for Nikon. Canon at least launched EOS M / EF-M series and is getting "closer to fully competitive" with M5/M6. Nikon ... mirrorless .. zilch!

Because Nikon has never made a MILC? Because Nikon has less ILC market share than Sony?

Or just because you personally don't want a Nikon camera?

Yeah, your rationale is as cogent as usual...for you. :

 

[AvTvM]

easy. There is nothing in all of Nikon lineup I would even remotely want to buy. Apparently many othrs are coming to same conclusion.

Nikon has no MILC. Nikon 1 was a bad joke, it failed, it does not even register as a blip on the map. WHY on earth do FUJI and SONY in 2017 have decent APS-C MILCs, but Canon only "half-decent" and Nikon zilcho?

It is hurting them and I like it. I hope, they will hurt a lot more. And if they on under, i will laugh.

 

[3kramd5]

In the future Nikon will concentrate their resources on medium to high-end DSLR cameras and lenses as well as mirrorless cameras.

too late ... ;D ;D ;D

It's too late to concentrate resources on... a mirrorless camera? Great, when will you stop asking Canon to?

too late for Nikon. Canon at least launched EOS M / EF-M series and is getting "closer to fully competitive" with M5/M6. Nikon ... mirrorless .. zilch!

so because they haven't released a MILC to your liking in the past, it's too late to restrategize and concentrate resources on a mirrorless rig in the future.

Right.

 

[Aglet]

Nikon has no MILC. Nikon 1 was a bad joke, it failed,;;

Nikon 1 series is actually, technically, quite impressive in some areas.
If you consider the absolute AF performance and FPS the 1v3 could provide a few years ago you might reconsider your position.
The system was a marketing dud, however. Competition was strong and they chose too small a sensor.
The high performance camera was also considered too pricey for a small sensor compact with seriously limited low-light abilities, despite its impressive sprint ability in good light. Larger sensor systems at lower price points provided better IQ and overall value.
N1 lenses were also quite decent.

I'm sure Nikon learned a few things from that experiment which they could apply to an APSC sensor ML system if they decide to make one. They are capable of providing a formidably well-spec'd product should they chose to.
D500?...

 

[ahsanford]

Nikon has no MILC. Nikon 1 was a bad joke, it failed,;;

Nikon 1 series is actually, technically, quite impressive in some areas.
If you consider the absolute AF performance and FPS the 1v3 could provide a few years ago you might reconsider your position.
The system was a marketing dud, however. Competition was strong and they chose too small a sensor.
The high performance camera was also considered too pricey for a small sensor compact with seriously limited low-light abilities, despite its impressive sprint ability in good light. Larger sensor systems at lower price points provided better IQ and overall value.
N1 lenses were also quite decent.

I'm sure Nikon learned a few things from that experiment which they could apply to an APSC sensor ML system if they decide to make one. They are capable of providing a formidably well-spec'd product should they chose to.
D500?...

I actually have to agree with AvTvM (and probably most everyone else) here. Regardless of the quality of the components or impressive spec sheets the bodies offered, Nikon 1 was a failure in that years have passed and Nikon didn't build something lasting out of it. If it was just a test platform to learn from, Nikon didn't seem to know that at the time and burned a lot of money in the process.

Nikon 'gambled on small' to open up a new market of shooters (candidly, women -- awesome idea on paper) and it didn't happen. It didn't sell as planned, and that's fine, but they then threw a number of body updates at that platform and offered more lenses than Canon did with EOS M. All of that added up to throwing good money after bad, and now, 5+ years on, Nikon clearly lost their shirt on the investment and have no enthusiasm / lenses / mount to leverage with a new system they now must build in haste. Some tech lessons were learned for sure, but it was a bloodbath to the company otherwise.

And regarding body specs, ask the 15 fps / 28 MP / 4k APS-C juggernaut Samsung NX-1 how it did. Body specs do not singlehandedly carry platforms to success or we'd all be shooting A7 rigs right now. So Nikon's 20 fps was lovely, sure, but with IQ resembling a not-too-distant-future cell phone, I fail to see how Nikon could save the brand.

- A

 

[Aglet]

...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.

Neuro, that's a great example of quoting out of context by using selective quoting to try to depict the opposite of the original statement.
Did you get practice in this skill by working for politicians or big-pharma?..

No, I didn't depict the opposite at all. I'm a scientist, and I'm used to distilling away rhetoric and opinion to reveal the underlying data. I just reduced your statements to the essentials. But since I know some people lack the necessary metacognitive ability to separate themselves from their biases, I'll rephrase your statements in accordance with your biases:

Nikon makes superawesomefantastic dSLRs that are so amazingly incredibly stellar, that are packed with so many wonderfully astounding features, that have such superlatively stunning performance, and that use such futuristically advanced cutting edge technology that when they release an updated model, they're only able to make very small improvements. So, once you make the brilliantly intelligent decision to buy a Nikon dSLR, you never need to buy another one. Therefore, Nikon users don't upgrade and Nikon sells fewer dSLRs.

Canon makes poor, sub-par, really abysmally terrible dSLRs that are so stinkily crappy they can barely take a decent picture. Once you make the idiotically foolish decision to buy one, you are locked into a viscous cycle and forced to frequently buy new iterations of Canon dSLRs in the vain hope that doing so will give you a little bit better performance and make your pictures ever so slightly less sucky. Therefore, Canon users upgrade all the time and Canon sells more dSLRs.

Smart Canon.

Yawn...
Keep bathing in rhetoric and patting yourself on the back; somebody has to.

FWIW, you do have the gist of the topic, as you restated it; albeit in a very unscientific manner laced with excessive amounts of superlative as you are often wont to do under the guise of an alleged sense of humor.

So take that theory, Mr. Scientist, and evaluate the merit of it instead of merely mocking it because it came from somewhere outside the nihilistic bounds of your crusty cranium.

The oft' quoted mantra of Canon's "superior lenses," a crock of guacamole outside of a few niche items, also reinforces that fear for consumers to stay locked into an underwhelming system choice.

NONE of my Nikon gear has proven disappointing in the least except for one particular design-issue in a low-end camera body that's easy to work around. There's been no need or desire to upgrade for a few product cycles.

As fas as the locked-in fear is concerned, it's overblown as well. Switching systems is easy. The best part about Canon's products is not the over-rated quality, it's the over-inflated resale value so one loses little by selling off and buying into another system that may be better suited to their needs.

Few other companies regularly hose their customers like Canon does with all their artificially limited products.
yes, it's probably good for business, which is why I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.

 

[Loswr]

FWIW, you do have the gist of the topic, as you restated it;

Yes, I understand your opinion on the topic. That doesn't mean your opinion has any validity in the real world or any basis in fact...as you so aptly help to illustrate.

So take that theory, Mr. Scientist, and evaluate the merit of it...

The oft' quoted mantra of Canon's "superior lenses," a crock of guacamole outside of a few niche items, also reinforces that fear for consumers to stay locked into an underwhelming system choice.

As fas as the locked-in fear is concerned, it's overblown as well. Switching systems is easy. The best part about Canon's products is not the over-rated quality, it's the over-inflated resale value so one loses little by selling off and buying into another system that may be better suited to their needs.

By all means, let's evaluate it. But let's do so objectively, rather that through those flagrantly biased goggles you wear. You claim Canon's dSLR products are sub-par, and their system is 'underwhelming'. Why, then, has Canon been the ILC market leader for 14 years and counting? You claim switching systems is easy...that's likely true in many cases, and easy switching may be part of the reason Canon gained ILC market share last year, as Sony and Nikon lost market share.

As for the high resale value that Canon gear commands, let's evaluate that objectively, too. Basic economic principles state that market prices are driven by down by higher supply and up by higher demand. Given Canon's long tenure as the ILC market leader, supply should be highest among brands...and that would be even more true if people were so dissatisfied with the Canon system. So if supply is high (and a quick perusal of Craigslist and major used retailers suggest that's true), prices would be substantially lower...unless demand is also very high. So, evidently people want to buy Canon gear.

An objective evaluation shows that the logical conclusion is that Canon offers a system that more people feel meet their needs than any other brand.

NONE of my Nikon gear has proven disappointing in the least except for one particular design-issue in a low-end camera body that's easy to work around. There's been no need or desire to upgrade for a few product cycles.

...I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.

Good for you that you're happy with your system, and I mean that sincerely. Anyone who isn't should switch, assuming there's something out there they feel will better meet their needs. The fact that the majority of ILC users prefer a system you don't like (or is that, rabidly hate?), should in no way detract from your enjoyment.

Given the financial and strategic problems Nikon is currently experiencing, and the inconsistencies that are typical of Sony, some newcomers may come to rue your recommendations (assuming they chose to follow them). But at least it will be easy for them to switch to the most frequently-chosen brand.

 

[scyrene]

Few other companies regularly hose their customers like Canon does with all their artificially limited products.
yes, it's probably good for business, which is why I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.

Is your contention that Nikon's products are significantly better than Canon's? Can you provide objective measures of that? From what I gather, most of the two companies' lenses are similar in quality and capability (Canon has one or two specialist ones that Nikon does not), most of Nikon's DSLRs allow a bit more shadow pushing (except the D5), maybe 6 stops instead of 4 in the newer Canon bodies, and the D500 is a touch higher specked than the 7D2, but in almost all other regards, the offerings are similar.

I can get someone saying 'Canon isn't better', but to go a step further and say Canon are worse (than Nikon) is stretching. As for overpriced... well, the market determines the price. If nobody was buying Canon cameras, then they'd have to drop the prices. If they haven't, it shows the market judges their pricing to be about right (and that's where the sales stats come in).

 

[ahsanford]

Is your contention that Nikon's products are significantly better than Canon's? Can you provide objective measures of that? From what I gather, most of the two companies' lenses are similar in quality and capability (Canon has one or two specialist ones that Nikon does not), most of Nikon's DSLRs allow a bit more shadow pushing (except the D5), maybe 6 stops instead of 4 in the newer Canon bodies, and the D500 is a touch higher specked than the 7D2, but in almost all other regards, the offerings are similar.

I can get someone saying 'Canon isn't better', but to go a step further and say Canon are worse (than Nikon) is stretching. As for overpriced... well, the market determines the price. If nobody was buying Canon cameras, then they'd have to drop the prices. If they haven't, it shows the market judges their pricing to be about right (and that's where the sales stats come in).

The Nikon lust was typically for EXMOR sensors and more resolution, that's really it. That's where people always got butt hurt about Nikon v. Canon, but that was last-gen with D800/D800E/D810 vs. the 5D3. Oh how times have changed.

The FF market has morphed since then. Canon's 2/3s of the way through it's next-gen of bodies, Canon has gone to on-chip ADC and started closing the sensor gap, and the resolution leadership changed hands yet again since the 5DS R came out. So, in short, the FF SLR world of 2017 doesn't look much like 2014 and everyone who loved pushing 47 stops on a D810 has probably already moved on to an A7R II.

And the rest of us wise people keep snapping away in our chosen ecosystems without the pains of migration. Canon and Nikon both make fine gear and declaring a winner of the two or lusting for what's on the other side of the fence seems a bit silly.

...except for spot metering at any AF point. That s--- is real, Nikon entry level SLRs have it, and Canon should feel ashamed for withholding it from the 5D line. :

- A

 

[Loswr]

Few other companies regularly hose their customers like Canon does with all their artificially limited products.
yes, it's probably good for business, which is why I still recommend ABC products to every newcomer.

Is your contention that Nikon's products are significantly better than Canon's? Can you provide objective measures of that?

Yes, he was quite explicit:

Canon is still irony-in-action; produce and sell vast quantities of sub-par product...

Objective measures? Well...Aglet likes Nikon better, so objectively, it must be better. That is what you meant, right? :