Why did Nikon double down on FX when the trend is toward smaller cameras and lenses?

coudet · Oct 1, 2012

Retzius said:
It seems like an odd choice, at least to me, for Nikon to double down on FX.

Let's look at it another way. There was a time when Nikon didn't have any FX cameras. That was the same time when everyone was selling their Nikon gear, and buying one of the 3 Canons with larger sensors than APS-C.

Funny coincidence that, eh?

Retzius said:
The market and consumer trend, in almost all types of electronics, it towards smaller and lighter.

Not when it comes to imaging sensors. Size iz king.

Retzius said:
It seems like a odd move to emphasize larger cameras and bodies when the consumer is demanding the opposite.

Consumer has many, many smaller cameras to choose from. Nikon makes point and shoots, Nikon 1 and smaller DSLR cameras.

High end DSLRs would be made for a more serious user. One that needs a functional, ergonomic camera. It needs to fit the hand. It needs to be a certain size, so it can have enough external controls and in the right places. You need to be able to use it without any frustration, even if you have your gloves on, during the winter months. It needs to balance well, even with long tele-lenses. It needs to have a long battery life. You don't get any of that with smaller cameras.

Now, if one only shoots for 30-45 mins every Saturday, I can understand why this might not seem important. But, it is.

Retzius said:
When I did see a DSLR, it was almost exclusively an APS sized sensor body.

Yeah. They're cheaper.

Retzius said:
I understand that most of these folks are not exactly "enthusiasts", but, sales to these folks are where Nikon and Canon really make their money.

Sure. They make a pretty penny selling every D800 they can make, too.

Retzius said:
Even if Nikon eventually makes a FX sizes sensor in a D3200 size body, the lenses will still be large enough to make consumers balk at the purchase.

You have many smaller lenses to choose from, some even (near) pancakes.

coudet · Oct 1, 2012

Grevture said:
Kidding I am not (sorry, went into Yoda mode for a moment)

Never apologize for doing a Yoda! Or should I say..

"Apologize, you must not. Mhhhhmmmmm!"

lancespring · Oct 1, 2012

ZOLTAR has spoken!!

joeybob · Oct 1, 2012

My $0.02 in regard to the "doubling down" issue...

Nikon is trying to lure DX system users into the FX system.
That is one observation and I base that on a couple of other observations:
1: The DX lens line up is lacking (perhaps on purpose?)

2: The D300/300s line has yet to be updated (and the D800 and D600 were released first to try and pull the D300 users into the FX system).

Will Nikon release a high end DX camera to replace the D300? We'll see. In the mean time - "Lookie here Mr photographer" (wink wink/nod nod): The svelte D800 and D600 are the "best", the "biggest" the " " (fill in the blank).

In 6 months to a year or so - Rinse and repeat.

As far as the "vacation crowd" goes; They will always be there to buy inexpensive/less expensive cameras than the DSLR. Nikon, Canon and all other camera manufactures know this. That is why every other year a newer/sleeker/sexier/fancier (and usually more $ expensive) replacement comes along - REGARDLESS of the genre (P&S/mirroless/DSLR). If 6 megapixels was good 10 years ago and 12 was good 5 years ago obviously 36 is good today and tomorrow - well...?

The camera makers know their markets. Supply and demand...

JimPearce · Oct 1, 2012

The tech-crazed mirrorless market is moving very fast, and with Canon entering and the Sony/Olympus alliance it will only move faster. Nikon looks poised to come out with a new V1. We'll see, but I don't see how Nikon can compete with very few lenses and the CX processor.
--
Jim

maljo@inreach.com · Oct 1, 2012

just as in the film days when full 35 mm cameras held their own easily
against disk cameras and a myriad of other smaller formats, FX
has an image quality advantage over the smaller formats.
Ultimately, it's about the image after all.

FX is the future.

maljo

JimPearce · Oct 1, 2012

and it always will be.
--
Jim

gobiassumcoffee · Oct 1, 2012

If size was everything, then we'd all be using large format cameras. There are other factors which comprise the desirability of a system as a whole.

[email protected] said:
just as in the film days when full 35 mm cameras held their own easily
against disk cameras and a myriad of other smaller formats, FX
has an image quality advantage over the smaller formats.
Ultimately, it's about the image after all.

FX is the future.

maljo

Hawaii-geek · Oct 1, 2012

Waiting for a Nikon FF mirrorless compact

That's the one I want to buy. with a great 14mm f2.8 prime.
imho, that would be used in a PRO set up.
Then I would not have to drag around a 14-24 and another body for a few shots.

HG

Retzius said:
It seems like an odd choice, at least to me, for Nikon to double down on FX. The market and consumer trend, in almost all types of electronics, it towards smaller and lighter.

It seems like a odd move to emphasize larger cameras and bodies when the consumer is demanding the opposite.

For example, I was at Disneyland with the family this weekend, and the DSLR was not very well represented. When I did see a DSLR, it was almost exclusively an APS sized sensor body.

I understand that most of these folks are not exactly "enthusiasts", but, sales to these folks are where Nikon and Canon really make their money.

Even if Nikon eventually makes a FX sizes sensor in a D3200 size body, the lenses will still be large enough to make consumers balk at the purchase.

What do you think?

--
http://tourist-of-light.blogspot.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

PatrickP · Oct 1, 2012

One trend I've been seeing in the recent years is many D3x00 buyers can actually be better served by a mirrorless camera. Most of these folks know little beyond set the scene mode and then press the shutter button. Mirrorless suits these folks much better.

As a regular D700/D800E user I indeed prefer a J1 over any of the D3x00/5x00 models. The J1 produces better IQ than the D80 and yet is 10x easier to use and also shoots very decent video.

A future APS-C version of Nikon 1, if designed properly, would likely decimate the whole D3x00/5x00 line.

For serious usage, even non-pro usage, the D90/D7000 line is the bare minimum in terms of AF and speed. And APS-C does make a lot of sense at this D7000/D300 level.

However the body and lenses at this level is not exactly small compared to ML. And the good lenses are not exactly cheap either.

For many many users who are buying multiple lenses, a common worry is DX is going away so they are all buying FX lenses anyways. Hence the D600. Also the IQ gap between D7000 and D600 is very significant.

Aside from the hardcore APS-C wiildlife/sports shooters, the trend is fast becoming mirrorless for casual vacationers and FX for the truly serious shooters.

Once upon a time even a $250 Nikon N60 film camera is based on FX format film. We are just slowly going back to the same frame size.

Grevture said:
JimPearce said:

Nikon are doing some things right, and some things wrong. Neglecting DX and driving two nails too close together: not good, but not a disaster. Nikon 1? Much closer to a disaster.

Click to expand...

So, Nikon 1 is close to a distaster you say ...

At Sonys recent press event in Reykavik, Iceland, where they launched the A99, RX1, Nex 6 and other stuff, they also - as usual at press events - showed some statistics. One piece of sales statistics was brought up to show how well they were doing with the Nex cameras in the mirrorless arena.

They proudly showed their markets shares with the Nex system: Globally and divided up into some distinct regions like the United States, China, Japan, Asia except China/Japan, Europe and some others. Incidentally, and the point of that was to show that Sony had the no 1 spot in many of these markets, second spot in a few and third in one or two. The rest 1 - 3 spots were distributed between "Brand A", "Brand B" and "Brand C".

What caught my (and many others) attention was that although Sony had many no 1 spots, it was "Brand A" who had the no 1 spot in two very large markets: The U.S. and China, and that this also enabled "Brand A" to be no 1 globally. So who is this "Brand A", maker of mirrorless cameras?

Well, the no 1 spot on the Chinese market is a good hint: It is Nikon. And remarkably this is something close to 99% from one single camera model: the much belated "failure" Nikon J1. This camera which has caught so much flak from the forum know-it-alls has basically singlehandedly outsold the entire Sony Nex lineup globally and in large key markets. It has also soundly outsold "Brand B" (should be Panasonic) and "Brand C" (Olympus).

So, Nikon 1 is close to what disaster?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

marike6 · Oct 1, 2012

[email protected] said:
just as in the film days when full 35 mm cameras held their own easily
against disk cameras and a myriad of other smaller formats, FX
has an image quality advantage over the smaller formats.
Ultimately, it's about the image after all.

FX is the future.

Of course it is. And it's kind of amazing that the OP, and many people who seem so infatuated with mirror-less cameras miss this point. Photographers who care most about IQ over miniaturization will almost always gravitate to cameras with larger sensors. Think of the huge amount of interest in the Sony RX1.

And in spite of all the hyperbole about the "death of DSLRs" to be replaced by whiz-bang MILC cameras complete with crappy EVFs or no VF at all, SLR sales are expected to grow 16% this year with 16 million units sold worldwide. In contrast, while the mirrorless segment grew at a faster rate, they are expected to sell 6.4 million units.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577342094118995830.html

Such trends hardly signal the demise of the SLR with an MILC in every pro and soccer mom's hand alike.

With the D600 Nikon did what it does best: it set another benchmark for DSLR quality. And it was able to keep quality extremely high with price the lowest it's ever been for such a camera. And in doing so it further solidified it's position as one of the marker leaders. The DX (D7100 and D400) bodies will come later, as will new ILCs.

Grevture · Oct 1, 2012

JimPearce said:
Olympus has a 36.6% market share. Sony's is 27.3%. Panasonic is in third spot. Nikon is in fourth with well less than 20%.

And these numbers you got from where? And they are for the global shares? And they are for 2011?

To me it sounds much more like the numbers for the Japanese market. (And actually, they do not sound at all like the numbers Olympus themselves mentioned ten days ago at Photokina).

So, to quote Gil Grissom: Really, cite your sources.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!

By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

JimPearce · Oct 2, 2012

It was leaked CIPA data. I can't link to the source, but here are the summaries: http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/silver.html .
--
Jim

Brooks Lester · Oct 2, 2012

I continue to notice more and more DSLR's in the hands "average" folks - especially at family destinations and events, like Disneyworld, school and dance recitals, amateur sporting events, vacations, etc.

Yes, most of these cameras are DX - but I definitely see some "enthusiasts" lugging around FX bodies. They're sweating a lot more than me and don't seem to be enjoying the trip as much as trying to "shoot" it.

I gave this up a long time ago and take a m4/3 and compact on my trips. I can move faster, "participate" with my family to a greater degree, and get better candids due to the greater ease of shooting with a small rig and high success rate/camera placement options that face detection live view shooting deliver with a well-designed compact or m4/3 kit as opposed to a D700 with 24-70.

Any m4/3 body with the 7-14mm Lumix can deliver superb land and city scapes. Toss in a fast prime like the 20mm f/1.7, or one of the fast 45's, and you're good to go.

I have to admit that a DX body with a kit zoom or wide prime is actually fairly small - not too much bigger than a m4/3 body with kit, and not that bulky.

I keep my D700 and fast glass for around the house and local shoots where I'm not going to be constrained by weight and bulk.

I think Nikon is playing to its strengths with its recent FX body releases - they've got an excellent and diverse line up of FX bodies.

rhlpetrus · Oct 2, 2012

JimPearce said:
It was leaked CIPA data. I can't link to the source, but here are the summaries: http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/silver.html .
--
Jim

These only give totals, showing actually that dslrs still dominate most markets. For August 2012, most recent data, you have total shipment of IL cameras:

Total: 1,795,919
DSLRs: 1,494,660
ML/other: 290,259

Thus, a 5:1+ ratio, worlwide shipments. Only in Japan the numbers are closer, 87K to 51K. In the Americas is almost 10:1, in Europe it's 8:1 and Asia (except Japan), 4:1.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

rhlpetrus · Oct 2, 2012

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24141195

(My 6th or 7th post at DPR, got hammed because of that, called a troll, etc, posted less than a month before the D3's release and a couple of days before I got a D80, my first dslr).

Not too bad an exercise in futurology ... .

Given that, there won't be a D400!

JimPearce said:
and it always will be.
--
Jim

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

JimPearce · Oct 2, 2012

Is that the "squeeze" is a myth, except maybe in Japan. Worldwide sales of both DSLRs and mirrorless are increasing - the total going from about 18 million units last year to a projected 22 million this year, with DSLR sales of 14 million and 16 million respectively.
--
Jim

JimPearce · Oct 2, 2012

You need to read "FX is the future of the DSLR and it always will be." twice.

--
Jim

antoineb · Oct 3, 2012

the SLR is an old concept which is just not well suited to the digital age as it introduces unnecessary complexity and bulk and weight and is inferior at precise AF or video.

Nikon are big in DSLRs and they probably also worry - they did launch the "1" system which is quite pathetic and is selling so poorly that in most countries the entry kit is cheaper than many compacts...

In the meantime however there still remains a conservative population of users. This population includes many people who always had that dream that one day they would own a "full-frame" DSLR (I use quotation marks because in German, for example, this format is called "small picture" because it was half the film frame of back then).

Nikon have smartly come up with two "full-frame" cameras, actually three: people who think they need tons of speed buy the D4, people who think they need tons of resolution and think they're rich and can live with various quirks buy the D800, and people with less money and who can be happy with 97% viewfinder coverage in an age where even cameraphones give 100%, buy the D600.

Nikon must be happy because they have already realised huge economies of scale in the production of bodies which have seen very little in way of modifications. So they must be reaping huge economic returns on these models. Good for them.

Hopefully they will be redeploying part of these economic returns towards developing more modern concept cameras which will prove more credible than the pathetic "1" system.

xjassa · Oct 3, 2012

Disneyland is designed for portable point and shoots. I'm going in a couple of weeks and will bring my wife's pink coolpix. The D800 and my plethora of lenses will await my return.

There has always been a demand for smaller and portable cameras, even in the film days when they were all 35mm. I wouldn't worry too much about not seeing high end cameras at Disneyland. Most owners would be constantly worried about their gear (stolen, water damage, heavy when walking, etc) to actually enjoy the park.

Why did Nikon double down on FX when the trend is toward smaller cameras and lenses?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts