Nikon's 5 year plan...

Started Oct 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
antoineb Veteran Member • Posts: 6,626
Not original but pretty good article, methinks

stevo23 wrote:

OK guys, you read what the moderator said. Maybe we can re-boot this yet again and stay civil.

Thoughts of Nikon's demise could bring many emotions, but it's just a camera. If they were to go away in 5 years (not likely), there are other toys to play with.

Here's the article:

Here's what I think is wrong with the article (not much right actually):

1) Most technology writers try to understand what they write about. This one doesn't quite get Nikon and Canon or any other camera maker or why any of the past ones went out of business. I don't know anything about him personally, but in this case, he seems to be missing something.

2) Quoting numbers can be scary, but I like Thom Hogan's more balanced approach. He actually knows what they mean and where they come from. He's being honest and straight with the facts and not skewing it for his purposes.

3) Tunnel vision is a sure sign that you're not getting an informative article. This writer focuses on Nikon and Canon, but the forces he describes and uses to predict doom are hitting all camera makers. One could actually say the Nikon and Canon, with cash in hand, are in a stronger position than the rest.

If you dig deeper, you'll realize this is not really an smart article at all. It's a simple regurgitation of facts that have been floating around for some time now. It's really just about the pain the smartphone market is causing the camera makers. It should say "all camera makers". But it doesn't. It chooses to focus on the big two.

Thanks for posting this.  Of course the author writes about what has now become very obvious to everyone - it would have been more more clairvoyant to write this several years ago, when it wasn't so evident because the demise had not yet started.

Sure the writer focuses on the biggest names - you know journalists have to make a living and this means be read and thus focusing on big names tends to work better.  But I don't see where he has "tunnel vision", or what's wrong in quoting numbers.

I disagree with your statement that "not much is right" in the article.  Basically, like I just said, the guy states the obvious:  the name of the game is not hardware especially optics anymore, which is a big problem especially for a company like Nikon whose main skill is in optics, followed perhaps by pretty good in-camera image processing.  So what can a Nikon DO?  I'm not sure actually - aim for a future as a niche player targeting premium customers meaning a nicely profitable but much smaller company?  A Canon is larger and has broader skills so won't have an easy time but has likely better chances.  A Sony has several business and broad skills.  An Olympus still lives mostly from the medical imaging business.  And so on.

The main thing I'm surprised the author forgets, is size and weight:  I own a mid-range DSLR with some quite good glass - but I often leave it at home just because the beast is too big and heavy, period.  Oh and sure it's pretty good at following action (unless I want to film it) but its AF is generally less precise than that of one of my superzooms.  Oh and the display is barely visible on a sunny day when that on my iPhone, is.  Oh and you can't touch to focus.  And so on.  Bottom-line is that my enthusiast DSLR is more often a HINDRANCE, a limit to my photographic freedom.  And I think that's the biggest challenge for a Nikon:  they are specialists in a cumbersome niche most everyone does NOT want to bother with anymore, because a mere smartphone fulfills their needs better and can be taken along any- and everywhere.

 antoineb's gear list:antoineb's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 Olympus TG-610 Nikon D7000 +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow