Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon rethinks 1 System and cuts 2013 forecast citing poor sales

Aug 8, 2013 at 20:27:05 GMT
Print view Email

Nikon has lowered its estimates for unit sales and revenue for the current fiscal year based on disappointing first quarter sales. Nikon cites poor market conditions, a large drop in compact camera sales and, most interestingly, a 'deceleration' in mirrorless camera sales growth.

Nikon's first quarter results reported that regional sales targets were missed virtually worldwide, though it notes that China's numbers were in-line with their already conservative estimates. The one place cameras were still selling briskly was in Nikon's home country of Japan. Nikon reported that sales and operating income dropped by ¥2.6bn ($27m) and ¥5.1bn ($53m), respectively, not helped by a 30% fall in compact camera sales.

Nikon has lowered its estimates for sales volume, sales amount, and operating income downward for the entire fiscal year, which ends on March 31st, 2014. Reasons for this include slow economic recovery worldwide, even worse compact camera sales than predicted, and slowed growth in mirrorless cameras.  

The actions that Nikon is taking to improve the situation include:

  • 'Accelerating shifting newer products in the entry class of DSLR'
  • 'Reconsider product planning of Nikon 1. Nikon 1 represents the majority of sales volume reduction of 550,000 interchangeable-lens type digital cameras'
  • 'Revise development plan for new compact [cameras]. Although our market share had been expanding in recent years, sales volume will diminish more than the estimated market shrink. Will maintain profitability as is.'

For all the juicy details, you can read Nikon's first quarter financial results using the link below. For details on Nikon cameras here on DPReview, click here.

Via: Reuters, Source: Nikon [PDF]

Comments

Total comments: 534
12345
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (19 hours ago)

nikon, would you please make a body like the j1 with a standard centered hotshoe and ricoh GRs featureset?

i dont care if its a classic rangefinder design or a modern design as long as it has the looks of the j1 or probably the v1 but i would prefer to use different ovf with every lens.

make a set of primes and special lenses, where is the tilt shift adapter for fmount?

better video, just give us hdmi out and 50mbit and all good :)

i LOVE 1" and super16

i bought a used v1 with 10mm for 250 € a few days ago to replace my gxr 28mm, and i absolutely love it, going to buy the 32mm for sure.

a superfast 85mm nikkor with 45mm closest focus in my pocket with superfast AF is so perfect that all th other problems are none to me :)

people loved or love the ricohs even they lack fast af or good video, and the potential hardwarewise is allready there, i guess they could solve all the critics with just one firmware upgrade. i bet they use it on their private cams hehe

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Cameron R Hood
By Cameron R Hood (2 days ago)

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that the V2 is the ugliest camera of all time...couldn't be that, no...must be market conditions...yeah, that's it...

Cheers,
Cameron

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (2 months ago)

The camera market is getting smaller smaller. That's it. I don't personally know any non-professional who bought a new camera last one year.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (2 months ago)

Nikon 1: too expensive system...cut down the lens prices or redesign the whole system.

0 upvotes
bbfolgart
By bbfolgart (2 months ago)

For me it was ergonomics. I loved the V1 and still use it extensively however the V2 design was too far away from the V1 that it was evident they were going in a different direction.

For a camera that purportedly sold very well in Asia and Europe I wondered why the big design change. If they took the V3 back to a camera similar to the V1 I would probably upgrade.

Perhaps they thought the V line was too close to the Coolpix A and in terms of design. they seem like first cousins. But in terms of performance there is no comparison. I remain astonished by the shutter performance of the V1 and it has allowed me to capture pictures that to this point I haven't figured out how to with a 'normal' dslr.

1 upvote
fibonacci1618
By fibonacci1618 (2 months ago)

Yes bbfolgart, and it is only a photographer who has actually used a Nikon 1 camera who can then truly appreciate it for it's excellent photographic qualities. Non-users who snipe it and deride it have no idea what they're talking about...

Let's hope Nikon takes a leap forward with the Nikon 1 system in future. Get the basics such as body design and features right, give it a price tag that is within the same range as other comparable ILC cameras, and it will slowly but surely gain a footing.

0 upvotes
Sebastian Porto
By Sebastian Porto (2 months ago)

I wonder how the other manufactures are doing with their mirrorless cameras?

I am a big Nikon fan (have a DSLR and several lenses) but never considered a system 1 camera because of the small sensor, for me that was the big mistake in their entry on this market. I think that there are many people like me that would rather buy bigger sensor mirrorless.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

it seems to me that 1" sensor is not something that will vanish easily and is in a good position to defend against the invasion of mobile phones.

1" sensor may also be prefered as a format for videos which can tolerate much more noise than still because our vision does "multiframe noise reduction" automatically.

I think Nikon may have overlooked something when they designed the mount. there could be much better mounts for 1" sensor than Nikon 1.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Blindphoton
By Blindphoton (2 months ago)

Just think if the Fuji X Pro 1, X20, or similar had NIKON stamped across the top. They'd be absolute winners (note, clearly they are already wonderful - I have both). If Nikon coupled its technical expertise with its old rangefinder aesthetics it would be on to an absolute winner.

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (18 hours ago)

thats too late, nikon is still too much in the pro market.

if they would start that trend it would be ok, but while others copy their own classics to make news nikon still produces new classics with their pro cameras.

i mean i think thats how they see the classics trend.

if they would make a new nikon rangefinder i think it would be more designed like a j1/v1 then an actual classic nikon rangefinder.

they are too proud to copy themself and obviously too proud to take some of the competitors ideas even if they are good and people are asking them for it hehe

0 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (2 months ago)

The bosses are the customers, not the brands.

Nikon is dying.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

customers can make wrong decisions.
actually they are the best customers anyone can dream of.

knowledge is power.
lack of knowledge is power to the enemy.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
WellyNZ
By WellyNZ (2 months ago)

Nikon is dying? Don't be so ridiculous and dramatic.

1 upvote
Inars
By Inars (2 months ago)

Why entry dslr?
As a cyclist, I use compact (today LX5). Please make compact with P3XX, RX100 body, atleast CX sensor 12-14 MP, clean pics at ISO 800; F1.8 at wide end, 24-120. I'ts not difficult.
For action & everyday use please, D400 :) with 16-85 F4 II. If it will happens 2 years ago, today I'll be ready for 300, or 80-400. Who will buy big glass with D3xxx or weaker camera?

Nikon goes your mistical way. So many big photographers & persons in Europe and Americas tolds everywhere around - make tools for photographers, don't make toys for barby girls.

3 upvotes
Miike Dougherty
By Miike Dougherty (1 month ago)

My Barbie girls (wife and daughter) only use iPhones. Tough market.

0 upvotes
fibonacci1618
By fibonacci1618 (2 months ago)

Nikon has a fantastic feature set & image processing engine in the Nikon 1 system. For what it is, it has fantastic focus speed that is still class-leading in the ILC world (with on-sensor PDAF), good video, great OOC color that beats their DSLRs (I have used Nikon's DSLRs so I know what I'm talking about), image noise that is tolerable bec it appears film-like, great FPS speed, etc.

But they blundered on pricing, on the ugly design of the V2, incomprehensible launch of the J2 followed closely by the J3, slow release of good primes, for starters. So many mis-steps. And now, they choose to delude themselves that the ILC market is not growing.

"But people who like cameras tend to just go for SLRs, even though they're very heavy." Oh my gosh... what a terrible mistake to take this view. It's obviously a case of internal politicking between two camps within Nikon.

2 upvotes
Mizzy33
By Mizzy33 (2 months ago)

I hope one of those "camps" starts to comprehend how they could have leveraged hardware people already own into integrating this form factor into existing gear bags...

0 upvotes
Panasonicus
By Panasonicus (2 months ago)

The market says small with large sensors. M43 seem to hold the future and the new Panasonic GX7 will meet the demands of most people wanting high end with a largish sensor in a small package. I never considered the Nikon 1 series because it seemed expensive and why go smaller than M43?

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

the initial production rate is low (far less than GH3)
Pana don't think many people will buy (at high price at least).

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
mgblack74
By mgblack74 (2 months ago)

Nikon, make a full frame X100s with CLS integration and I will separate money from wallet. Make an full frame X-Pro1 and I will buy two.

1 upvote
Mizzy33
By Mizzy33 (2 months ago)

Why I can get CLS integration on a $446 Coolpix P7700 (which gave me the impetus to buy a Nikon flash in the 1st place, knowing I would be investing in a FF Nikon of some sort) and not a V2 is just mind boggling to me...

Marketing product like Nikon does, dilutes and does disservice to the "brand".
Better to just introduce a new marque and build it from the ground up on merit ...

I'm sure I'll be advised in the error of my thinking...

3 upvotes
BeaniePic
By BeaniePic (2 months ago)

I commented on the day they realised this product, and it seems my insight was correct. (Not blowing my own whistle or anything)....

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

the Nikon 1 mount is not as good as m4/3" which is not a good design itself. Nikon 1 was designed to outgun m4/3" not in image quality but in f-number cheating but their cheater lens 32/1.2 (87mm f/3.3 equiv.) came late.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

@yabokkie - "Nikon 1 was designed to outgun m4/3 not in image quality but in f-number cheating but their cheater lens 32/1.2 (87mm f/3.3 equiv.) came late."

So Nikon is the only company capable of producing "f-number cheating" fast lenses? Is that what (according to you) they were really basing the success of their 1 System on? That was their ace in the hole? The idea that they-- and they alone-- would be capable of making fast "f-number cheating" lenses? LOL. Also, as the $900 Nikon 32/1.2 lens clearly shows, such fast f-stops don't come cheap.

With m4/3, you can get the Oly 45/1.8 (90mm f/3.6 equivalent) for $350. It's not only a lot less expensive than the Nikon 32/1.2, it's also a lot lighter and more compact (116g vs 235g, 37mm filter diameter vs 52mm filter diameter). So even if the 32/1.2 hadn't come late, it still wouldn't have saved the Nikon 1 System.

If you need faster f-stop, m4/3 will soon have the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2...with O.I.S!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

Nikon learns dirty trick from the 4/3" gang and they have fun playing with it as a side business, though they failed to cheat as successfully.

> If you need faster f-stop
I need quality in the output image that no genuine-Pana-fake-Leica can provide. whatever f-number you say it simply cannot give me the same high quality result, not even as 85/1.8G stopped down to beyond f/2.2.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mike99999
By Mike99999 (2 months ago)

@yabokkie: most pro photographers seems perfectly happy with a full frame body with f/2.8 zoom. This gives them the flexibility of not needing to swap lenses.

The slew of micro four thirds lenses (12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.4, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8) provide the same equivalent DoF and light gathering characteristics as those full frame zooms, while being sharper and with less distortion. You trade the zoom for compactness, which is very sensible in many situations.

As a whole, it makes sense.

Nikon 1, from the start, has been a system designed to make mirrorless look bad.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

they are nearer to f/4 zooms at unreasonable high prices (maybe "reasonable high price" for 45/1.8) and we don't know if they are sharper yet with low resolution m4/3" cameras.

good analogy to compare "fast" m4/3" primes to "slow" 35mm format zooms.

0 upvotes
Ari Sandi
By Ari Sandi (2 months ago)

Nikon have lost the momentum. The way they want to keep DSLR as their mainstream product has hold them back too long and made them lost the momentum.
Nikon 1 was way too late. They failed to be a trendsetter. Sony's won the MILC battle.
The greatest new gen camera community are now belong to Sony and OlyPana.

3 upvotes
Doug Janis
By Doug Janis (2 months ago)

Except Olympus is aching much worse than Nikon, and Panasonic is almost nowhere to be found in sales data, ranking behind Samsung.

0 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (2 months ago)

Well, if Nikon can make a mirrorless camera worth buying, maybe they'll sell more. Don't blame the market if you failed to make a worthy product. The mirrorless market is currently lead by Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic. Take notes from them.

6 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

Nikon is not strong in video but if they can make a Nikon 1 C1 for high quality video with 60p or 120p (multi-card slots), all-I, time code, mic in, HDMI headphone out, ... they should be able to beat GH3 at least with ultra-zoom (30x-60x) lenses.

a move that Pana, Sony, or Canon cannot make easily because they have interests in Avccam, Handycam, or whatever.

0 upvotes
supeyugin1
By supeyugin1 (2 months ago)

I went for Samsung NX for the IQ, price, ergonomics, and good lens choice, and for Pentax Q for fun, size, weight and price. Nikon is in the middle. Nobody wants it, sorry.

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (2 months ago)

Solution:

Drop the entire "1" line, fire all employees connected to the "1" line, including all departments doing research, design and marketing, and yes... including the advertising company that put a spin on this nonsense crap.

Voila! Profits galore!

.

3 upvotes
beavertown
By beavertown (2 months ago)

The R&D department and many poor little staff who work there are innocent.

The high rank ones are the culprits. They should be fired. Including the one who is moaning now.

7 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (2 months ago)

Nikon 1-series cameras and lenses consitute probably the best mirrorless system out there. Maybe prices will fall after this gloom and doom announcement?

2 upvotes
Marty CL
By Marty CL (2 months ago)

Indeed, it is the price that is the culprit here. The Nikon 1 series actually produce some very nice images.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

@ Francis Carver - "Nikon 1-series cameras and lenses consitute probably the best mirrorless system out there."

You can have a really great system, but a lot of people will still be turned off by the tiny size of the sensor. Sure, if all mirrorless systems used such a small sensor, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But obviously, that's not the case. So when people consider the prospect of investing in a camera system, I think they start with the sensor size, then consider the system built around that sensor size. Back in the 35mm film days, that's what killed the original Olympus Pen half-frame system. Sure the entire camera system was quite nice, but it still used a film frame that was a fraction of the size of what everyone else was using. Now, the Nikon 1 system finds itself in the same situation: nice system, overly-small frame format compared to everyone else.

2 upvotes
Truman Prevatt
By Truman Prevatt (2 months ago)

Nikon was looking for a home run. The last home run came with the SLR which changed the camera industry and is still dominate - independent of digital sensor or film. Home runs are difficult to come by. What people want is not important - it is what people buy is. I expect the Nikon 1 type cameras will be around in the mix for a long time. However, just as the flexibility of the SLR system limited the rangefinder cameras of the 50's and 60's to a niche - I expect the flexibility of the DSLR system will limit the mirrorless to a niche. That doesn't mean that the companies won't pursue their development or limit their utility.

1 upvote
Marty CL
By Marty CL (2 months ago)

Right on the button here.

0 upvotes
zapatista
By zapatista (2 months ago)

I expect that good PDAF on chip will make the SLR market obsolete, but the technology is still a couple years from mass market.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

"I expect the flexibility of the DSLR system will limit the mirrorless to a niche."

How is mirrorless less flexible than DSLR? I think it's really mirrorless that is *more* flexible than DSLR. Mirrorless cameras offer focus peaking, focus magnification, broader body configurations (DSLR-style or rangefinder-style), shorter lens registration distances so more lenses can be adapted to them, more compact sizes, quieter and stealthier operation, cameras with or without viewfinders, the option of a removeable EVF, and even tiltable viewfinders! DSLRs don't offer any of these things. Thus, they are less flexible, because they are constrained by the deep mirror box, reflecting mirror, optical viewfinder, etc. Since mirrorless has none of these constraints, they offer much greater flexibility in how the cameras can be designed and used. DSLRs are basically sandboxed by their age-old mechanical limitations, whereas mirrorless is much more open, flexible, and unconstrained.

4 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (2 months ago)

What T3 says.

"I expect the flexibility of the mirrorless system will limit the DSLR to a niche"

FTFY.

0 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (2 months ago)

Maybe it's just me, but as a m4/3 user I think the Nikon 1 system has potential. I would recommend it to some people who just want something better than a point and shoot but not a dSLR. The camera's are easy to handle and blazing fast, lenses are small and there are some nice colors. The V1 sold really well for around 300/400 euro. It would be a shame if Nikon 1 will vanish within 2 year after introduction.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (2 months ago)

"lenses are small and there are some nice colors."

I agree that the Nikon 1-series kicks Micro 4/3rd buttocks. However, with a 1-series Nikkor lens (NR 10-100mm) weighing in at a hefty 19.75 ounces, I would not call all 1-series lenses small.

No reason to shop for lenses based on their colors.

0 upvotes
Thorgrem
By Thorgrem (2 months ago)

I didn't say Nikon 1 kicks M4/3 but. It doesn't so you don't agree on that point. And you name the 1 huge lens for Nikon 1, plenty more that are nicely sized. Please use normal arguments to make a point.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (2 months ago)

Notice Olympus made virtually the same announcement about disappointing PEN sales (see DPR front page).

But here there are hundreds of comments about the Nikon 1 system, how it's not this or that. But as I said earlier this announcement has less to do with the quality of the Nikon 1 (or the PEN) as a system and more to do with a shrinking enthusiast market.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (2 months ago)

Nikon 1 is all about trying to sell a camera to someone with a smartphone, when that someone doesn't want to carry a dSLR. Sales of small sensor compacts are tanking, so what do you do? In Nikon's case, you try to sell a more capable, more flexible, small camera system, with both "enthusiast" and "simple" models.

You have to admit it all sounds good on paper...

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (2 months ago)

Nikon is probably trying to the sell their 1-series system gear to folks who actually want to buy Nikon 1-series gear for some reason. Just a while guess on my part.

0 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (2 months ago)

Very true. The main defense of the 1 series was its practicality for novices and small size. The only thing is, a lot of those upgraders are hard people to convince to invest in lenses and accessories. With the V2, Nikon finally reached out to its enthusiasts with more standard features and ergonomics. Yet for many of those enthusiasts (not including some notable pros who love the system for its autofocus), the small sensor is just too limiting, particularly when other mirrorless cameras can be just as small.

Personally I find the images produced to similar to those of a compact, especially the poor dynamic range. It's hard to justify buying expensive lenses when the sensor is so limited, though this too might improve.

0 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (2 months ago)

If I would general manager of nikon, first thing what I would do is reading forums and try to understand what people want. Then I would give an order to make that camera.
Of course not such bull*** like FF in RX100 body and 35x optical zoom. But normal suggestion from normal people. But apparently the general manager doesn't read forums about photography. :-(

0 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (2 months ago)

Maybe Lumix will let Nikon rebadge their new GX7. I
am a Nikon DSLR owner but the GX7 is the next camera I want.

0 upvotes
rekky
By rekky (2 months ago)

Any DSLR owner knows that larger sensor = better quality. As a Nikon DX series owner, I kept asking myself ever since the Series 1 launch, "why the heck would I want one?" and I never came up with any satisfactory reason. It seems that too many others came to the same conclusion. If I wanted a compact camera, the smallest sensor that I would go for is on the Sony RX-100. My only issue with that camera is the price, but one day....

Compact camera users are size and price vs quality sensitive and many have switched to cell phones.

Any fool including myself figured this out a couple of years ago. I don't know where Nikon mgmt's head is.

0 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (2 months ago)

Uh, the Nikon 1 and RX100 have the same sized sensor, and the Nikon 1 lenses have the edge in both image quality and flexibility.

And, as a DX owner, why don't you ask yourself "why the heck am I using APS-C instead of full-frame"?

5 upvotes
rekky
By rekky (2 months ago)

I stand corrected on the sensor size. But, in moving down to an RX-100 type camera. you are really going for a compact camera instead of adding another whole interchangeable lens system.

Why APS-C instead of full-frame, it comes down to cost; with an investment in DX lenses and with the major increase in cost to move to full-frame, it pays to stick with what I have; when I started with DX, it was the 'best' available.Would you get rid of your DX or FX camera for a smaller sensor camera based on current sensor technology?

1 upvote
kadardr
By kadardr (2 months ago)

Action plan proposal for Nikon:
1. Make the 1" sensor size the smallest in the lineup.
2. Start turning out 1" sensor compacts (there is room for competition for RX100, and what about weather resistant, underwater etc.)
3. Make FF compact camera line with prime lenses (28, 50, 75-85mm lens) at a price max. usd 1500 each.
4. Decrease the price of A (it is inevitable) and launch a modified A+ with 35 mm equivalent lens below USD 900 as starting price.
5. Keep the 1 system and start selling a really attractive V3.
I am real smart, ain`t I?

2 upvotes
taktak91
By taktak91 (2 months ago)

Not really.(^ ~^)

1 upvote
elf kerben
By elf kerben (2 months ago)

Nikon did all the mistakes you can do it, not to touch the DSLRs. No PSAM, no CLS, no real Hotshoe and a lot other. This and the insane price the want is DOA.

I bought the v1 months ago for the reduced price and it is a good video-cam and a not so good photo-cam, with good batterie-time. Interesting is the change the good batterie in the v2 to another model!?... another mistake .... :)

But it works nice for video together with my D700. So no need for D800 or other stuff.

Nikon it was really a good chance, but you loose. Maybe with the v3 it will be better, i hope and have time, you not. :)

2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

Does anyone happen to know the comparative unit shipments of Samsung mirrorless ILC cameras for the same period, by any chance?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

Comparing Nikon to Samsung is rather pointless because Samsung is such a huge company, with so many different products (televisions, smart phones, laptops, tablets, refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves, washers & dryers, to name just a few) that Samsung's camera division is practically a footnote or a hobby for them. Samsung doesn't need for their MILC cameras to be a hit. Heck, they probably don't need to make any money at all from their MILC products. Nikon is in a completely different situation, though. Nikon needs their cameras to be successful and to sell well. Samsung, on the other hand, just likes to have their finger in a diverse range of products, even if some of the products never become popular.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

don't know but guess a couple of thousands per month.

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (2 months ago)

The biggest problem with the 1 system was the insane launch price. I hated the 1 system, started shouting calling the police saying ripoff. Hard to forget. The price of this system must have been initially below D3200/D3100, and that is the value proposition of the system and the place to be and nothing more.
But
put a 10mm f/2.8 lens on a V1 and you have a nice street shooter with larger sensor than GRD IV.
Put a 10-100mm powerzoom on and you have a bridge camera better than the X-S1.
And there are more lenses to shoot with and they are great for the price.
Nothing replaces the first impression though, and that is showing in sales results.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

Do these dismal sales figures mean that perhaps Nikon will stop taking it's customers for fools?

Did they really think the market would not figure out that a 1" sensor doesn't cut it in face of the competition? Not competing with their own DSLRs is one thing, but they seem to over-estimate Nikon brand loyalty and forget that there are other choices out there in the mirrorless market space.

3 upvotes
DVT80111
By DVT80111 (2 months ago)

The RX100 price has hold up very well since release. It is the best pocketable camera on the market today. Someone needs to bring in a competition fast.

3 upvotes
Marvol
By Marvol (2 months ago)

The potential competition has known about the RX-100 at least since its launch. The longer it takes for any of them to come up with a competing product, the more I am inclined to think that Sony actually pulled something out of the hat that is extremely difficult to copy let alone top.

Sony cornered that market pretty decently, just like they did with the RX1.

0 upvotes
ivan1973
By ivan1973 (2 months ago)

The mirrorless SLR are DOA. Who wants an expensive half boiled egg in the first place? And there comes camera in a phone...

0 upvotes
Osvaldo Cristo
By Osvaldo Cristo (2 months ago)

Nikon maintain one foot on mirror less market at a cost. Nobody is making money on this cannibalistic market. People for this market wants mirror less, big sensors and have no money to to pay for that or does not want to pay for it. I wonder why manufacturers insists in this insane market.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Justin Francis
By Justin Francis (2 months ago)

With cameras like the Sony RX100, it is a miracle that Nikon sells any 1 series cameras. Nikon puts a small sensor in a big body with a high price and then forecast big sales?

10 upvotes
mumintroll
By mumintroll (2 months ago)

Exactly.

1 upvote
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (2 months ago)

The forecast for Nikon and other Japanese camera makers is grim.

Nikon shares are trading 32% lower this year.

Their biggest slide comes from the 48% decline in compacts (with "only" a 6% drop in DSLRs).

As their company President Kimura hinted last month, Nikon are looking to tap into the smartphone market by creating a product that will "change the concept of cameras".

A Nikon smartphone, anyone?

.

1 upvote
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (2 months ago)

Hahaha!!! :-D

..wait, seriously? :-|

1 upvote
G Davidson
By G Davidson (2 months ago)

Well why not, if it's Smartphones that are selling an replacing compacts. They don't even have to dominate there to make a nice little earner, perhaps just with camera modules/processing with 'Nikon Colours'.

I feel the concept of connected cameras isn't enough- the Smart advantage is only needing to take along one item. It's not only a threat to compact cameras, but game consoles, MP3 players, GPS and everything else. Now how about a Smartphone with interchangeable camera modules, with tiny folding optics? Don't be surprised if Nikon thinks outside the box on this.

0 upvotes
cmvsm
By cmvsm (2 months ago)

Maybe they finally need to get rid of that dud Ashton Kutcher as the faceman of this product line. He lays a steamy pile everytime he touches something. Although, I did like the Butterfly Effect. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

1 upvote
20vanda12
By 20vanda12 (2 months ago)

This is not all about economic slowdown or economic recovery. It is about having an excellent product. If you overprice your product and your product is so-so, then guess what you are driving away your customers.
I have a J1 and I've been using it for a year. I like the product but I didn't recommend to my friends, because am sure of the less informed people about the strenght and weakness of your product will complain.

Again don't blame the economy, blame your product.

2 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (2 months ago)

Pricing is a very important component in the marketing mix, get it wrong and even a product with potential will fail.

The Nikon 1 was definitely priced wrongly. It has a smaller sensor yet it was more expensive than its main competitor, the micro 4/3.

Nikon could have developed an APS-C version but they must have felt it will eat into their DX DSLR market. Thus, the conservative management made the fateful wrong decision that a smaller sensor would be still acceptable.

To make it worse, the product is far from perfect with much to be desired.

When two major aspect of the marketing mix for a product are wrong, the chance for its success is very slim.

A poor economic enviroment will only speed up its demise.

The Canon EOS M would share a similar fate unless some drastic measures are done. That would be the Canon story.

These would make interesting case studies for marketing students in future.

1 upvote
rekky
By rekky (2 months ago)

How about reducing the prices of some of your many overpriced DSLR lenses and see if the volume increase more than makes up for the price cuts in increasing revenue

2 upvotes
Nismo350Z
By Nismo350Z (2 months ago)

If only Nikon had put P-A-S-M on the control dials in the first place, then none of this would have happened.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 54 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

hahaha! good one! like that is going to compensate for a smaller 1" sensor and allow them to compete with the other mirrorless cameras! LOL

0 upvotes
harrisoncac
By harrisoncac (2 months ago)

Nikon 1 series are interesting. The prices are simply ridiculous. With Sony' s excellent NEX line, why one has to bother with the small sensor N1's?
Won't buy N1 V2 with 10-30mm lens until its price goes to $299 level.

4 upvotes
svx94
By svx94 (2 months ago)

If Nikon pay attention to Fuji's X forums, and how many Nikon-Fuji adapters sold, it is not hard to figure out that those are the people Nikon LOST (with me being one of them). Nikon 1 is a disaster, face it.

4 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

Fuji do not have good camera, nor they have good lens.

0 upvotes
dgc4rter
By dgc4rter (2 months ago)

"Fuji do not have good camera, nor they have good lens."

Eh?! Tell that to the zillions buying the new X100s at the moment - me included - and yes, I own a Nikon D800 too.

3 upvotes
EvilTed
By EvilTed (2 months ago)

Yabokkie, you should wash that foot before you stick it in your mouth!

ET

4 upvotes
G Davidson
By G Davidson (2 months ago)

Too true. Most Nikon users want a mirrorless they can effectively use third lenses on, not with a 2.7x crop. I'm personally hoping for the DX mirrorless system that will support AF, lens corrections and so on. But right now Fuji looks like the best option in that area.

0 upvotes
LadyGaGa
By LadyGaGa (2 months ago)

@yabokkie - "Fuji do not have good camera, nor they have good lens."

Where do you come up with such nonsense?

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (2 months ago)

Troll filter is still missing from dpreview

0 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (2 months ago)

so many experts here that all know better how to run a large company. LOL

2 upvotes
Sangster
By Sangster (2 months ago)

It is when things go wrong is when people raise questions and come up with all kinds of suggestions. Apple's history is a very good case study.

1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (2 months ago)

The only saving grace for NeeKhon is to either jump in the 4/3 bandwagon (it's not too late yet...) or start being serious on the APS-C "mirrorless" market.

Trying to implement a NEW lens breed was such a bad idea. (even their Jurassic Nikkor Ai could be used on current 4/3 by using a $20 adapter!)

.

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I think 4/3" format may be one of choices with a new mount (the m4/3" mount is no good). but two mirrorless mounts for 1" and 2" half-frame or full-frame may also be good.

0 upvotes
Mark Alan Thomas
By Mark Alan Thomas (2 months ago)

Nikon will probably push full frame across the line.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

it may not be a "rethink" and plan B, but step 2 of plan A.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

@yabokkie - there's no way they are going to support two mirrorless mounts. As it is, they can barely support just the one 1" mirrorless system, so you're suggesting that they add another mirrorless system, too? LOL. The main buyers of the Nikon 1 system are a small population of diehard Nikon fans. It's not a mass market success. So now, you're suggesting that they split that already small population of buyers by asking them to choose between a 1" system and a 2" system mount? Terrible idea. On top of that, while other brands support two sensor formats at most, (ie, APS-C and FF), Nikon would be supporting FOUR different formats (1", 2", APS-C, and FF), in addition to their respective lens systems for each format! All at a time when the photography market is in decline!? Talk about spreading yourself thin! So in reality, your "step 2 of plan A" would simply be a step towards even greater revenue loss. Nikon needs a fourth ILC format like they need a hole in the head.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

let's wait and see.

I'd prefer they abandon the Nikon 1 mound and make two new mounts.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

@yabokkie - so your solution is for Nikon to throw new mounts at the problem? LOL. Keep making new mounts until they run out of money, while alienating their users who've investing in one mount, only to see it abandoned and replaced by two more mounts? Yeah, great idea! Not.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

I think Nikon planned to make two mounts years ago. Nikon 1 is the first which was not a good design.

Nikon is a much larger company and they need 2 or even 3 lines each with much larger volume than m4/3" if they want to go "pure mirrorless" sooner or later.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

it's my speculation that Nikon may have planned 3 mounts,
Nikon 1, as we can see already,
Nikon 2, APS-C or APS-H, with a flange-back near 30mm,
Nikon F, current SLR mount.

I would prefer they have
Nikon 1', flange-back 8.8mm (24mm equiv.),
Nikon 2, APS-C, flange-back 16mm (24mm equiv.).
Nikon 3 may have big psychological impact but I'm not sure if it's really needed (will get lost eventually if it doesn't have sound technical base, like the original SLR 4/3" design).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

yabokkie, you keep putting your foot in your mouth every time you post, constantly writing crazy things. It's very humorous. What a great way to anger the few users that invested in the Nikon 1 system: follow it up with the Nikon 2 system! Haha. You think this was planned all along? No, the reality is that Nikon was probably hoping that the Nikon 1 system would be their only mirrorless system. But it has failed, so they will be forced to move to APS-C mirrorless.

As for a Nikon 2 system having a 30mm flange distance, why would they make it so deep when everyone else (Canon EOS M, Sony NEX, m4/3, etc.) all are using much shorter flange distances? Canon and Sony both use 18mm. So basically, in Nikon's first attempt at mirrorless, they made the mistake of using a sensor that was too small, and in their second attempt at mirrorless you're proposing that they use a flange distance that is too deep, making for cameras that are too thick? LOL. Nice prediction. Foot in mouth again.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

T3, I really wonder if he's behaving this way on purpose. He doesn't get some very basic things about photography, pays no attention to the behavior and concerns of the camera companies over the years, and insists he is right about things he is painfully ignorant of. I think he's just trying to get into arguments for fun.

0 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (2 months ago)

TROLLfilter is still missing in dpreview

Comment edited 13 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

some blame the high price but the price itself doesn't mean much.
what's wrong with high price from a maker's point of view?
if you mean market share, then why should anyone care?
why should large volume low profit better than small volume high profit?

some blame the sensor size but what's wrong with sensor size?
how format will affect image quality if you have same aperture lenses?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

1) Higher the price, harder the sale, lower the volume.
2) Market share doesn't matter, volume and profit margin do.
3) Small volume only works if you can make a large enough profit margin. In electronics the competition is so fierce profit margins have to be kept very low. High volume, reasonable profit, make money on lenses and accessories.
4) Small sensor makes charging a lot difficult because only people who know anything about cameras appreciate larger sensors. 1" sensor was brand new, had no following, and bigger small sensor already saturated the market.
5) Format affect image quality? Really? The size of the sensor influences pixel density, partially because MP count matters to people both practically and in marketing terms. Small sensors mean more noise at high ISO and it's harder to get a small depth of field. The aperture determines depth of field, the size of the sensor determines how much of that depth will be recorded.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

For example, put an EF lens on a FF body and take a picture. Use the same focal length and aperture on an APS-C body and you only record the center portion of the image circle. All that nice out of focus bokeh around the edges isn't hitting the sensor.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

1> volume and profit margin do
not sure about either. PE is what I want.

2> size of the sensor influences pixel density,
so how can pixel density affect image quality?
noise comes from two sources, (1) the amount of light gathered by the lens and (2) generated by semiconductor circuits. neither is affected by pixel density.

3> aperture determines depth of field,
everything an aperture can affect, including depth of field

4> the size of the sensor determines ...
it cannot determine something which is already determined by aperture.

Comment edited 6 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

1) Join their marketing department and then your opinion matters.
2) They have to have enough pixels to produce a good amount of detail and keep up with everybody else from a marketing perspective. So, 1" sensor and a enough megapixels to not be dismissed out of hand gives you a pixel density. Actually, it's pixel pitch that matters, but higher pixel density leads to a lower pixel pitch. Each pixel has a full well capacity and a quantum efficiency. S/N ratio means you need a big enough signal to minimize the noise, and small pixels just aren't good at that. They have a low full well capacity which makes any noise created by the pixel proportionally larger, therefore more prominent...meaning the image looks noisier.
3) Yes, aperture on a 1/2.3" sensor creates the same depth of field on a FF sensor. The FF sensor covers more area so the out of focus area become proportionally larger. This is a very basic photographic/optical principal here and there are better places to learn.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

Seriously, go read about how sensor size affects depth of field. Yes, optically speaking the focal length, subject distance, and aperture determine depth of field (throw in circle of confusion if you want to get really picky about it as long as you can also define what constitutes a reasonable level of sharpness). The optics are able to create a certain size of image circle, which means if all those settings are the same and you have a huge 3" diameter image circle, the depth of field is the same as a 1" image circle, but you have a lot more area outside that depth of field that is out of focus. So, a lens that creates a FF image circle will allow a FF camera to record more of the area outside the depth of field. If you were to only look at the center of that frame (which is essentially all a crop sensor is doing) the outer perimeter of the rectangle recorded by a FF sensor isn't being used by the crop sensor. Go read some detailed references.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

No more, man. These are things that you either need to learn elsewhere or you already know and are intentionally being obtuse. Either way, I'm over it.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

you mess all the things up man.

just think you have a perfect "Speed Booster Zoom" that can condense or spray the light freely. then you can have whatever sensor size, or a "rubber sensor" that can change size freely with the output image unchanged. nothing will change be it image quality, depth of field, or diffraction, along with the sensor size.

sensor is not lens. a simple fact that many people don't understand.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

Format sensor size is significant. It's a consideration for quite a lot of buyers: Which format do I want to build my system around? Which format has good lens support? What's the lens selection for this format? Do third-party lens manufacturers make lenses for this format? Will this format be around in a few years? Or is this format a dead end?

There are plenty of people who are very reluctant to invest in a system built around such a small, obscure format as Nikon's 1" sensor format. Especially when it's the smallest sensor format of all the mirrorless systems (aside from the even tinier Pentax Q), the cameras and lenses aren't much smaller, nor are they less expensive!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

> sensor size is significant

so you are one of those who cannot tell the difference between lens and sensor.

sensor size maybe affected by several "technical" factors, (1) one is the atom size and the smallest number of atoms that we can use to construct a sensel, (2) another is related to optics, the smallest f-number for glass-air lenses puts a limit on sensor size beyond which we cannot make (quality) lenses.

I cannot see into far future but a 1" sensor of 160MP sounds standard (for budget cameras) using current technologies. 1" is selected because we should be able to make f/1.8 equiv. level lenses (which is f/0.66, physically impossible to make f/1.4 equiv.).

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (2 months ago)

Yab, you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met on this site. You don't understand the most basic concepts of camera design. Project the same image circle from a lens onto a FF sensor and then crop it to only the center, the size of an APS-C sensor and you have a smaller field of view, thus the 1.6X crop convention changing the effective focal length (this is simply shorthand for conveying focal lengths in terms people understand, which is to say 35mm film convention). Field of view, angle of view, depth of field, image circle....go do a little studying. You don't have the slightest conception of how sensor size effects....well, anything. It does actually matter in several key areas, and you don't understand a single one of them. Good luck, but your willful ignorance is none of my business.

0 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (2 months ago)

I gave up Nikon long time ago for their pricing policy. If you have a DSLR in the beginners range, it is so incomplete, like no drive motor for lenses, reduced AF, no tilting screen, and so on. When it is complete, or somewhat special it is overpriced, like all high end cameras and the J1 series and the compact APSC camera. Nikon should check what the market wants, we want correct priced complete cameras, like d200 and d300 have been once, and we want a correct mirorless sytem with differnt sensor sizes. Come on Nikon, you can do it, why all this crappy stuff people get interested in when they sell as end of production gear, for 1/3d of the price.

1 upvote
Timmbits
By Timmbits (2 months ago)

a good example of what you are saying, is the D3200 versus D5200. differences are in hardware: 1 hinge, 1 microphone. differences in software: no bracketing on the D3200 (and a couple of other things). how much does it cost to put those things in? now what is the price difference? now compare the price of a D5200 with a Samsung NX20. (yes, I said Samsung, because Canon and Sony probably have similar practices).

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (2 months ago)

cruser:

Claiming that "it's shifting to cellphones" isn't exactly paying attention, it's asserting about what right now is a very different market. Cellphone cameras just aren't that capable; they lack a huge number of features. Some of this is the fault of cell phone makers, some not.

Of course people walking around are more likely to have a cellphone camera than Nikon1, or say a Samsung EX2F but that's not the question. The question is "what kind of smallish camera, with high image quality, would you seek out? The question is not: "If you had to carry one camera, already own a smartphone, what would you choose?"

Yes people use their smartphone cameras as good enough because it's at hand.

1 upvote
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (2 months ago)

new phase:
Introducing Nikon 1 smart phone...

0 upvotes
wherearemyshorts
By wherearemyshorts (2 months ago)

Nikon needs a new spokes person. Get rid of the austin? person. He was an incentive not to buy Nikon!

0 upvotes
reginalddwight
By reginalddwight (2 months ago)

Who is austin?

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

the root of the problem is in Tokyo.
who made the stupid mount?

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (2 months ago)

Enthusiasts tried to tell them, and sung like birds; while we we were being called pessimists. We love the phase detect speed. That sensor doesn’t cut it. It soils the whole system. I could have even lived, with the whole 'Space 1999' style; if it was designed around a DX, or better FF, sensor. It's a myth, that you have to have a small sensor, to control size. It's not that a system can't be smaller, due to a smaller sensor, it's what's the point; for it? More noisy cameras? There always the Q, LOL.

When are they going to listen to the ENTHUSIASTS? Who doesn’t like a good enthusiast camera?

But this is all a waste; because they don't have to get it right. Any time they even hint, at a partly, balanced (benefits) camera, or a part, new betterment, it's quadruple the price. That is called, The "best"! "Look at me! I have the best", this month. All the while, it's an unbalanced POS. ...Might as well play with film! I am sick of it!

Still waiting....

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jay A
By Jay A (2 months ago)

The biggest thing Nikon has going against themselves is their own arrogance. They feel that just because they are Nikon that consumers will flock to their products when something new comes out. What essentially happens instead is that people stay away because a lot of these products (the 1 system, the Coolpix A are 2 great examples) are simply overpriced for what they are. Perception is that one can get as good as, if not better than by going with Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, or Ricoh than by spending a few hundred dollars more for essentially the same item from Nikon.
Wake up Nikon...look what happened to Leica using similar practices.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (2 months ago)

Nikon is a maker, while Leica is a promotion website.

0 upvotes
dynaxx
By dynaxx (2 months ago)

Jay A says "look what happened to Leica" ; so far as I know they have prospered with the latest sales/results looking pretty good. They seem to have made the very difficult transition from 35mm cameras to medium format cameras quite effectively. What failure did you have in mind ?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
edwy
By edwy (2 months ago)

There may be a spreading belief among many into serious photography that Nikon does not care enough about the equipment it puts out. I have been buying Nikons since 1978 and I was going to buy either a D600 or a D800 when I started reading about the dust problems and the focusing problems with those two cameras. Not only were there problems but Nikon did not seem to care enough to fix the problems. I eventually downsized to a D7100 which I am happy with but that is $1000 to $2000 less than I would have payed for the larger cameras. I think Nikon should be spending more time putting out cameras that work well all the time.
As for Nikons current non DSLR cameras - I do not like any of them. I think Fujii, Sony, Panasonic and Ricoh are making cameras that have more appeal to me than any Nikon in that class of camera.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
Betws
By Betws (2 months ago)

I have a D70 a D7000 and a V1. It's the V1 that I prefer to take with me. It does everything I want, it is fast, brilliant build quality & the "small sensor" is not a problem. There are far to many photo snobs making comments based on prejudice - try the V1, apart from the stupid mode dial it's great value at the current price.

12 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (2 months ago)

About prejudice; Would you have bought a Nikon 1 if you weren't already heavily into Nikon?
With its original price tag there where many better offers out there.

My take is that those who settle for a 1" sensor (which is not really bad) doesn't wan't to fiddle around with a pletoria of lenses in their handbag, and the RX100 becomes a much better offer.
Those that accept/like to carry extra lenses will most likely opt for a larger sensor camera, whatever that might be.

3 upvotes
AlpCns2
By AlpCns2 (2 months ago)

Thank you for being one of the (very) few voices of sanity.

4 upvotes
Shamael
By Shamael (2 months ago)

yes, the V1 system is a huge set of tools, but it became a runner when it sold for 350$ for the whole kit after they stopped production to go for the V2, that is so overpriced that it becomes a flop again. If you want to sell such a good camera, make it at a price people ca afford or want to pay for it. The V1 kit at 499$ was ok, but not at 1100$. Nikon thinks that we will pay the N logo the same way that some idiots pay for fashion logos. We might all be crazy, but we are not stupid. Stupidity will start when you consider 3 pointed stars on cars, LV printed on plastic, and red dots on cameras, and pay the price for that nonsense.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Total comments: 534
12345