That report was also disastrous for one other brand.....errr the one with the fullest, most established range of APSC lenses....Fuji. So not sure how this supports your theory that Nikon is lost without APSC lenses?
If you plot a trend line through those, you can see that Fuji is actually on a slight upwards trend. It only looks bad because Fuji, for some reason, is very cyclical in their sales volumes. The real losers, based on the above data, are Nikon and Olympus.
My point stands, snce the debacle in APS-C dslr market was exactly because kits dedicated to those who only buy one lens cannot compete with smartphones. The fight for beginners who would like something better than smartphones require something else. That market has shrunk and competition at the bottom is fiercer than ever. Both Canon and Sony have more to offer than Nikon in ML, as do Oly and Fuji.
So why has Fuji's market share collapsed? They have a lot more APSC lenses than either Canon or Sony?
It hasn't. Their sales volumes are cyclical and in aggregate, Fuji is on a slight upwards growth trend. Their share of mirrorless sales is more or less flat, which is to be expected as the market matures with lower end full frame offerings becoming available.
Ironically, part of Fuji's problem *is* lenses. Fuji makes 32 XF lenses and 7 of them are over 100mm in focal length. A whopping 2 lenses are longer than 300mm and one of them focuses worse than using Nikon FX telephotos with the Fringer F to XF autofocus adapter. Two of the lenses are wider than 14 mm and they are both $1,000+ zooms. Fuji zooms are also, for the most part, really poor value for money. If I were buying into Fuji today, there are maybe two zooms on the system that can hang with the equivalent m4/3 or full frame options: the XF 16-55 f/2.8 and XF 50-140 f/2.8. Then there's the headache of processing X-Trans files.
There are only so many buyers you can attract when you're line-up is overwhelmingly primes in the moderate wide to portrait focal lengths.
