US customers willing to spend more for Nikon

That's always funny with Nikon - even here in Old Europe. In the old days of a Nikon FM-2 (I have one) I really understood Nikons reputation... but now? We have a Canon and a Nikon system in our household, with a D300 and an EOS 7D (plus some older analogue bodies), and comparable lenses (such as the latest 70-200/2.8 of both companies). We use it extensively (e.g. for wildlife photography) and so I know both systems quite well. And I really can say that the Nikon system by no ways beats the Canon system - both have it's pros and cons. I'd value them equal. So, as a Canon user (no fanboy!) I am really happy if Nikon leads the price race. And currently I am happy that I can get a new full frame EOS 5D/II body for about 3/4 of the price of a D700 body 'cause I think about it... ;-)

But don't forget: the real mercedes still is a Leica...

Just got the V1. It's worth every penny.

Shocking. And I'll bet these same consumers think a Mercedes is worth more than a Buick, but let's commission a study.

Nikon products are (usually) great but make no mistake, Joe Ehrenreich was a master at giving things away (now known as endorsements). And therein lies the secret of Nikon's good fortune with name recognition. To be fair, the Nikon F was more suitable SLR for pros than what Canon, Leitz or Topcon were offering at the time. Another secret to Nikon's success might be that they are frequently backordered whereas Canon announces the thing and the floodgates open.

BTW, the reason Leica doesn't have the same level of name recognition is because (a) they never devoted the effort and money to product placement that Nikon has and (b) many of the people who know what the Leica is and was are no longer with us.

File this study next to the one National Geographic did, to find out if Kodachrome was really more permanent than other color film.

I Think Leica should be on the list I mean 20,000 S body and 8000 for an M body.

The conclusion of this spurious study does not seem wrong to me since nikon has produced good equipment most of the time during its existence. But I am sure that the recent boost in its marketing campaign is responsible for most of the brainless crowd to buy its cameras.
It is really hard to find a Sony or Canon or Pentax advertisement on DSLR. There are some P&S, but they are also scarce.
Nikon's Ashton Kutcher is everywhere!!!
Don't forget that a Nikon camera is a Sony camera in disguise...

All those ready to spend more just because it's Nikon have never held a Pentax K7/K5.

The best compac camera 2011 fujifilm x10.
Is a good price awesome camera.
FEDERICO F. Moy.

Perhaps one reason the Nikon brand gets so much respect from camera buyers is that they really have no other business but cameras and lenses. (OK... a few riflescopes and binoculars... but not that many).

Just like Rolex means "wristwatch".... Nikon means "cameras."

The names Sony, Samsung and Panasonic mean "electronic appliances."
The names Canon and Ricoh can also mean printers.
The name Sigma means "cheaper lenses for your Nikon"
The name Olympus means "inept Board of Directors" (at least lately)

Nikon sits among a small group of companies who derive almost all their income from cameras and lenses, and as a result command instant brand recognition and respect.

Brand image means a lot in marketing anything.

It speaks about brand recognition, and the customer's perception of quality or prestige.

This is why Toyota can sell cars very similar to Kia cars for a lot more money, and why Lexus can sell a re-badged "loaded Toyota" for a whole lot more than a similarly equipped Toyota would cost.

What is "comparatively high" price for the Nikon 1? I think DPR and its population lives in its own world so they don't get all digital cameras today are dirt cheap.

Compare with prices of cameras from the film age, and especially from some 30-40 years ago, when people from Western countries needed to put aside few monthly salaries to obtain just one camera with one lens.

But perhaps the whole story tells more about what cameras have become and what's their true value: today's camera have little value and are treated as commodities, not as photography tools.

And there's no price too low for a commodity.

Since the "1" Nilons are probably made in Thailand or a similar country, their manufacturing cost should be no higher than those of the Sony NEX cameras or Olympus and Panasonic cameras. The only real reason for buying the "1" cameras is using legacy Nikon lenses. However, if one does not insist on auto-focus, any Nikon lens can be used on any mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (well, not Leicas, I guess).

For reasons beyond my comprehension, Nikon decided to use the smallest sensor of any camera of this type (well, except the Pentax Q). Untill I see detailed review proving me wrong, they would not be my first choice for this camera type (and I have owned, used and loved Nikon SLR cameras since 1971).

Perhaps, for those wanting smaller cameras with high quality, Nikon should have revived their S sreias of rangefinder cameras in a digital format.

That's only half of the truth.
The other half ... Nikon & Canon are the only two brands that deliver a complete system where every photog finds something at pro level in the FX/DX class.

All other brands lack this kind of "completeness".
Seen under this perspective "Canikon" is not more expensive than other brands.
Finally ... you get what you pay.

A truly ridiculous study. Go look at the website. The first thing is that the only people who would use such a site are those who are clueless about cameras and want they are looking for. So the representativeness of the sample is dubious. You basically put in your criteria, and the site makes a recommendation. So you can check off your preferred brands (i.e., the ones you've heard about and indicate your price range). Apparently camera-naive people who check off Nikon also indicate a willingness to pay higher prices. So what? We still don't know how well this applies to consumers in more traditional sales channels or to even the 'average' consumer....

The same is true also for Apple products or no?

There's nothing a Nikon can do that a Canon can't. Except gouge their loyal customers it seems. I've shot both professionally, there's really no difference. Why pay more?

"Based on preferences collected from more than 26,000 digital camera shoppers visiting MyProductAdvisor.com from May through October 2011".

Before Nikon 1 was announced...

Better conduct another research soon, dudes... voters are fickle minded.

Trading largely on a good name and peoples ignorance with the Nikon small sensor slow lens 1 kit is likely to be a strategy with a limited life.

Well.. duh.. You need a market research company to tell you this.? Nikon equipment costs the most on average vs. market competitor peers.. so I kinda had the feeling Nikon already figured this out (and about 30 years ago or so)?

There really are no bad cameras today and brand loyalty should not be the deciding factor. The camera and lenses need to be right for what you want to do and having the most expensive price tag does not make it the best camera for your particular purpose.

They all produce great images and all have their own special benefits as well as limitations.

Reviews don't tell the whole story. You need to hold it and try it to find out whether or not it is going to be right.

Forget the brand name. It means very little today as far as getting incredible images in the most comfortable and efficient way possible. There are many cameras above and beyond the N and C names. Great marketing which Nikon and Canon are exceptional at does not translate to best camera and lenses.

Well 26,000 shoppers does not represent the whole of USA. It may also be that more Nikon fanboys felt the need to visit MyProductAdvisor.com for some soul searching when choosing gears. Canon users tend to know more about what they are buying and feel less need to look for an advisory site. The proof of the pudding is Canon sells more cameras than Nikon which discredit the above survey.

Maybe people are willing to pay more just because... they will get more? Just a thought...

Nikon makes great lenses and cameras. Why shouldn't people be willing to pay for them, of they can? The prices: look at a 70-200 2.8 from any of the big 4 camera makers and you realize they all charge a premium for this level of gear. All quality camera gear is expensive. The only profession or hobby more expensive to outfit yourself in is videography.

Doesn't make sense to be willing to pay more just because of the name 'Nikon' when there are better alternatives for less money and more advanced technologies!

Nikon..over rated^^

I think the article has it backwards. It's because Nikon has always charged the highest prices (among Janpanese cameras) that only those who are willing to pay more are Nikon customers.

And Canon loves to pull the price rug out from under Nikon. When Nikon debuted their 12-megapixel version of the 5d, it had the same price as the original 5D. A month or two later, Canon debuted the 5DII with more pixels, and about $500 cheaper. Nikon had no choice to drop their price to match the price of the (higher-performing) 5D II.

It's still not in the crazy Leica territory. I see a lot of better cameras in the M9's competition, but look at the price they get for that M9. Yikes.