They clearly are. If they weren't they wouldn't have made the A6700 - Sony isn't a charity
Nikon's Chinese lenses are premium ones, the cheap stuff is made in Thailand
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Should Nikon become a lens manufacturer only? (Controversial)
- Thread starter LennyLevino
- Start date
Karl Huber
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,659
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Sony will sell anything at a loss to gain market share. They lost a bomb on their Walkman and portable CD players. Their early Play Stations were not profitable either.
chambeshi
Senior Member
They design their own based on Sony or Tower generic framework, with cutting edge technology advantages eg lowlight image quality. Case studies in the D5, D850 etc. The final design is fab'ed by one of the few foundries, usually Sony Semi
Your evidence? you are very badly misinformed.
See above and Read this post by Thom Hogan:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67148004
The Sony E mount is an inferior design for FX optics. It's designed for APC. It is cursed to struggle to implement high performance IBIS on a FX Camera.
The hard cold fact it's TOO narrow for optimal FX optical designs. E mount is Poorly future proofed, unlike the Z Mount.
https://jaknguyen.medium.com/sony-vs-nikon-why-im-switching-to-nikon-a3cc4b654f
The Z Mount is the universal recipient, subject to cross mount adapters matching Nikon's Z Autofocus protocols. Nikon retains complete control over who can make lenses for the Z System.
The Z mount architecture makes possible a f0.6 Nikkor Z Lens
https://www.nikon-image.com/sp/z9_specialinterview/02_zmount/
Last edited:
chambeshi
Senior Member
The OP's attempt to start yet another Nikon-is-Doomed Thread backfires spectacularly against the hard data :-D:-D:-D
Beyond healthy profits, recent trends in sales data suggest Nikon's strategy appears set to gain market share. This can only mean Nikon crossed the threshold in 2022 by bringing to market an attractive mix of options in Z Mount glass. Currently, the Z System comprises 40 Optics, and Nikon has stated to its it is aims to total 50 at least by 2025
https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20230709_344459.html
Although only Japan, the data reveal some intriguing trends. Low sales of RF mount sales compared to Canon MILC's are the most surprising. Does this mean the majority of Canon owners are sticking with adapted lenses on their R mount MILCs?
High sales volume of the Z8 is probably a factor, but this has only reached markets some weeks ago. It is likely to have sold yet more Z Nikkors
https://petapixel.com/2023/07/03/nikon-z8-tops-sales-charts-at-5-japanese-camera-stores/
Beyond healthy profits, recent trends in sales data suggest Nikon's strategy appears set to gain market share. This can only mean Nikon crossed the threshold in 2022 by bringing to market an attractive mix of options in Z Mount glass. Currently, the Z System comprises 40 Optics, and Nikon has stated to its it is aims to total 50 at least by 2025
https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20230709_344459.html
Although only Japan, the data reveal some intriguing trends. Low sales of RF mount sales compared to Canon MILC's are the most surprising. Does this mean the majority of Canon owners are sticking with adapted lenses on their R mount MILCs?
Loading…
www.bcnretail.com
ニコンがミラーレス市場で3位浮上、「Z 8」発売で - BCN＋R
ミラーレス一眼でニコンのシェアがじわじわと増加している。2023年5月のメーカー別販売台数シェアでは12.9％を記録。OMデジタルソリューションズ（旧オリンパス）を逆転し、3位に浮上した。同社のTOP3入りは過去3年で初めて。家電量販店・ネットショップの実売データを集計する「BCNランキング」から明らかになった。
www-bcnretail-com.translate.goog
High sales volume of the Z8 is probably a factor, but this has only reached markets some weeks ago. It is likely to have sold yet more Z Nikkors
https://petapixel.com/2023/07/03/nikon-z8-tops-sales-charts-at-5-japanese-camera-stores/
-Nikon made the decision to exit entry level 5 years ago - in 2018. The entry level segment was not profitable at the time and the market was in steep decline. Development of low cost products is different from development of leading edge products - and requires R&D. So pursuing the entry market would require taking resources (R&D, engineering, and capital) away from the enthusiast and pro market that gave you the Z8, Z9 and all the good lenses.Nikon is third in market share, so they should just fold and exit the camera business? Not sure it makes sense to give up a profitable business just because they are not #1...
Then again, as Ricky Bobby says, "If you ain't first, you're last!"
The Z8 and Z9 seem like successful cameras (i.e. Nikon still has suitable R&D resources to develop competitive products!) not to mention Nikon's financial reports the last couple of years indicate that they are doing well...
Business strategy says you want to be a top player in the markets where you compete. You want stable or growing markets. There are also costs associated with marketing and sales support for sales channels that are different from enthusiast and professional channels - Walmart and Costco expect you to staff, stock and service cameras.
Last edited:
Miles behind? I could shot almost anything even with my old Nikon DSLRs, clearly less capable than the new Z8/9. What is the tiny small use case where more is needed? Small birds in flight at 30 fps with consumer cameras? Well, the world of motives to photograph is much larger than that.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
That's a common claim. But is it true? It might be better to say that in hindsight it is not a good design for digital full frame sensors. But I doubt it was "designed for APS-C".
It might also be better to add some context around this. There's a difference between film and digital. Sony FE/E is 46mm throat diameter. Nikon F is 44mm. So the Sony is wider. One would hardly say that the F mount was designed for APS-C. Minolta SR and Leica M mounts are also 44mm. These mounts were certainly not designed for APS-C.
In the era of DSLRs the F mount was plenty wide enough, even if not optimal, for digital full frame sensors. Mirrorless is a different beast. The Leica M only has a flange distance of 28mm. If I recall correctly, early Leica digital cameras struggled with vignetting and Leica had to redesign the microlenses that covered the sensor to overcome this issue. This is not an issue with film.
You have Nikon tilt/shift lenses for the "tiny" Nikon F mount that project an image circle far larger than needed to cover a full frame format, and sharp corner to corner.
So while I may agree with you that 46mm is an inferior design for a digital mirrorless camera, I don't know that I would agree that 46mm means that the mount was designed for APS-C.
Surprised to hear people still believe the old emount myth about it being designed for apsc and that the mount is limited. The 1st FF body emount body was released 6 years after the mount was brought to market. As for the mount being limited Sony’s lenses are among the very best on the market.
To the OP who suggested that Nikon become just a lens manufacturer a few points;
- The loss of Nikon bodies would be devastating to the industry for both commercial and sentimental reasons.
- Who would Nikon sell their lenses to? Certainly not Canon shooters.
- Nikon may well have been in deep trouble a few years ago but they appear to be very healthy again now. Z6/Z7 III releases will only make them even healthier but could be the bodies that help them take some market share from both Canon and Sony.
To the OP who suggested that Nikon become just a lens manufacturer a few points;
- The loss of Nikon bodies would be devastating to the industry for both commercial and sentimental reasons.
- Who would Nikon sell their lenses to? Certainly not Canon shooters.
- Nikon may well have been in deep trouble a few years ago but they appear to be very healthy again now. Z6/Z7 III releases will only make them even healthier but could be the bodies that help them take some market share from both Canon and Sony.
chambeshi
Senior Member
The E mount was introduced in 2010 for the APC NEX cameras. Perhaps this correlation is misleading? I'm not aware of contradictory evidence.
The history of camera mount development is obscure and incomplete. And Japanese companies are secretive.
Apparently, E underscores the Eighteen mm throat depth, which was obviously designed for Mirrorless ILCs
F-mount is the 1960 vintage when 35mm film was the relatively new standard for smaller format cameras
There are several statements by Nikon engineers emphasizing how the Z Mount frees up design constraints, for more compact, sharper lenses particularly edge to edge etc. We see the benefits in the new 14-24 f2.8S and 14-30 f4S for example.
Also the 400 f4.5S with its novel optical design likely leverages aspects of the Z Mount architecture for the rear elements.
There are also significant benefits of a the wider gape to AF communications besides IBIS.
This is the primary factor, particularly compared to the architecture of the Canon RF and Nikon Z Mounts.
The pertinent question prior to 2010, is whether Sony had even planned to use the FX sensors when it originally introduced the E mount (?) The tightening of the 49.7mm gape of the A mount to a 46mm gape of the E mount suggests a strategic mistake at the time if FX sensors were in its future.
Nikon had the final call, and its Z Mount the optimal dimensions of shallowest Throat of 16mm with wide gape of 55mm, to which the Canon RF is closest with 20mm and 54mm, respectively.
Ironically, the FX A900 - Minolta A mount - had been released in 2008, although the Leica M9 was the first mirrorless Camera announced September 2009.
Anyways, by 2012, Sony had already locked itself into the E mount with successful lens production, although the Pro lenses were released only in 2016.
"....What nobody predicted was the demise of the DSLR and there was a good reason for this: camera sales were at an all-time high. Every manufacturer designed their systems to sit alongside professional DSLRs (where they had them) and Sony was no exception...."
https://petapixel.com/2023/05/01/sony-didnt-have-a-clever-mirrorless-plan-to-fool-canon-and-nikon/
Last edited:
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
This is not the proper perspective on the Sony mount. The correct words are "more restrictive." The same exact position that Nikon was in with the F-mount in the DSLR era. That didn't stop Nikon from making great F-mount lenses, but it did put restrictions on what they could easily do.
Restrictive in the sense that certain lens parameters and designs can't be considered. In particular, the image circle restraints are higher for E-mount than Z-mount. This has implications on things like vignetting, for instance, and is one reason why you see a lot of the wide angle Sony lenses have a greater degree of linear distortion that requires in-camera lens correction.
Not to say that you can't find such lenses in the Z-mount. Lens designs are always a balance of factors, and since the start of in-camera lens corrections, we see a lot of designs punt on the "easily corrected" decisions versus other decisions (including price).
It's atypical to outsource manufacturing of a component that gives you a competitive advantage. Commodities are called commodities for a reason - there is no competitive advantage to mine your own metals - unless it is lithium or perhaps uranium.
This reminds me of the Betamax vs VHS arguments. Despite being superior Betamax disappeared. Blackberry too... Being superior in some way is not enough to survive - in the end it's all about market share unless you want to end up a niche player.
I have had the ability to use a Sony 200-600 for 4 years now - is Nikon's even available yet, in theory it should be substantially better that the Sony 200-600 ?
Their 70-200 GM2 lenses are probably both the best 70-200 lenses you can get, in theory Nikons Z 70-200 should be superior, other than in weight I mean - 30% heavier ? Less vignetting - great, 30% less weight is likely more important than a marginal improvement in vignetting.
I think the same can be said of their 100-400GM - it certainly not lagging despite being quite some years older.
They have the greatest range of lenses available for their cameras. The difference in image quality between the Nikon, Canon and Sony lenses is not enough the be noticeable to me or to many other users.
The market for f0.6 lenses is not going to sustain Nikon that's for sure.
And who says optimum lenses need to have optimum optical designs ? There are tradeoffs that need to be made between optical design, weight, cost and other factors. Just ask Betamax.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, being released first on an APS-C camera does not necessarily mean that it was designed specifically for APS-C. That would indirectly imply that Sony engineers were too short-sighted to see that just a few years down the road they would need a mount for a full frame camera. In fact, the full frame A7 was probably in development before the first NEX camera was released.
Sure. But that's hardly the point. The F mount with 44mm throat diameter was designed for full frame.
Again, all true, but hardly the point. No one is disputing that the Z mount is a less restrictive design than E mount. But that doesn't mean E mount was designed for APS-C and that use on a full frame camera was an afterthought.
This is all reminiscent of the old argument in the (D)SLR days that the F-mount was inferior to Canon's mount because of the narrow 44mm throat. Perhaps it was technically inferior. But it was adequate to the task.
Unfortunately, us armchair quarterbacks don't have access to the design process that the E mount went through as the engineers debated pros and cons of what would go into the final design.
Yes. One could agree that the 46mm mount of E was a strategic mistake. Unfortunately, mistakes happen. On the other hand. Sony may actually stand behind their E mount decision as the compromise they wanted when all factors are taken into account.
musicmaster
Well-known member
- Messages
- 124
- Reaction score
- 178
IMHO, M4/3 is on a slow death because of a combination of stagnant sensors (except at the top end) and phones getting better. There's a valid use-case for a very compact wildlife setup, but for your average non-photographer consumer, an entry level M4/3 camera with kit lens don't offer much IQ over what their iPhone or a top level Android phone can do, especially with computational photography the phones do automatically.
APS-C can be a different story. Canon was on the right track with the EF-M mount where you could get fantastic results from a pocketable camera (the M100/M200). The current crop from Nikon and Canon though are in a weird spot. The entry level is too expensive and due to the larger mount, the size isn't often that much smaller than full frame options.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
That is always an option.
One would hope that would be a sort of last resort if the FE/E mount started to restrict what future advances in camera technology Sony was able to include in future models.
Vandyu
Veteran Member
I don't know if I would call this person a troll. I associate that term with having negative intent. But, I can't for the life of me understand the merit of the question. My suggestion to the writer is to focus on something worth discussing based more in reality. That being said, never stop wondering about the nature of life. Just be prepared for encounters with those who do not see it the same as you.
:-D
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
Well, maybe they could be a bit of both. Do lenses for perhaps m4/3 while still catering ot their existing crowd. I could see that as being something worth looking into, as the m4/3 population is still a decent one (of course it's not huge like APSC).
But honestly, I think Nikon just need to release two more bodies really and they're doing pretty good: a high end DX body and a cheaper FF sports body. After that it doesn't matter. They have plenty of optics to cover most needs nowadays in the native Z lens mount, and there are only maybe a few more lenses still missing (a 200 f/2, 135 f/2 or 1.8, and a 35 1.2, of which two of them will probably show up within the next 12 months).
I think Nikon is focusing more on profitability than mass market share. you can still be successful with 10% market if you're making a profit. Or you can have 50% of the market and still lose your shirt so market share isn't everything when it comes to success. You could have 50% market share but break even. Meanwhile your competitor who has 10% is making a profit and reinvesting while you're treading water.
If Nikon can keep the momentum going with the Z8 and perhaps some upcoming gear, I think they are a in good position to take back some of that market share. I'm not saying they will get back to 40% where they probably were 10 years ago, but even if they can get and maintain 20-25%, I'd call that pretty good. I think in the end, though, if CAnon maintains its current track, of trying to lock everyone out of their system, it's going to hurt them in the long run, and this is where Nikon will win if they can just stay in business, and why Sony is also doing well. People may not buy your lenses, but they will need to buy your camera to use your lenses.... And really, lenses are more of a long term purchase anyway, where bodies are more shorter term (people tend to upgrade every 3-5 years). As one of my friends puts it: You marry your lenses but you date your camera bodies.
In regards to Canon at least, they have a benchmark now that they need to beat to stay competitive and ahead, and that may be a challenge for them. So basically this means the R1 and R5 Mark II need to exceed the Z8 and Z9, and with the Z9, Canon will probably release the R1 next year, but Nikon may then also be coming out with the Z9 Mark II shortly there after. So it will be interesting. I think Nikon has positioned itself in a good spot to grow with the recent deliveries over the past 6-12 months in terms of lenses and the Z8.
--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
Last edited:
True, but not 100%
My first full frame DSLR was a D700 with a 70-200 2.8
The D700 is still going and gets occasional use. The 70-200 autofocus died and Nikon no longer supports the early version of this lens and no repair parts are available. Grrrrrr!
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
For some yes it's not 100% and they upgrade, but in general lenses tend to be longer-term purchases for most people.
Certainly not 100% true.
I upgraded my 70-200 f/2.8 in 2021 to the E version after 7 years with the G (which my wife now uses). I upgraded my 24-70 f/2.8 earlier in 2023 to the E version. Over my 33 years of using Nikon cameras I have had five different FX “standard” zooms and two DX “standard” zooms. I have also had five 70-200 zooms.
Over the same period I have had 7 different main cameras (more than one example of each). The first of those was used with a mix of prime and zoom lens the others mainly with fast zooms. I’ll spoil the maths by pointing out that I have had my F5s for 27 years.
Thus I would say that my lenses stay slightly longer than digital bodies but I have no lenses that have been with me as long as the F5s.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum