Competition making it tougher on Nikon all the time.

Bob A L said:

If I'm not mistaken, (but frequently am) I thought you could put a $5,000 lens on a R100 if you wanted to. And as you say, its glass that makes the difference. I know I used numerous 400-500mm zooms on my lowly D40 for years.

Click to expand...

Just because you did it doesn't mean everybody else did/does.

Beatboxa is mostly correct. People that were buying those cheap DSLR kit cameras in Best Buy, Walmart, Costco, etc didn't buy lenses and usually did not upgrade to higher end gear.

Those that bought a D7xxx or D500 are a different segment of the market. These are not cameras that compete at all with the level of body like a Canon R100.

A lens that sells for $400 is starting to get to the marginal end of IQ for a serious photographer. A $400 kit of body plus lens can't be generating much profit and has to be a horrible entry level experience. As was said, these cameras end up in closets when the user gives up and goes back to a phone.

michaeladawson said:

Bob A L said:

If I'm not mistaken, (but frequently am) I thought you could put a $5,000 lens on a R100 if you wanted to. And as you say, its glass that makes the difference. I know I used numerous 400-500mm zooms on my lowly D40 for years.

Click to expand...

Just because you did it doesn't mean everybody else did/does.

Beatboxa is mostly correct. People that were buying those cheap DSLR kit cameras in Best Buy, Walmart, Costco, etc didn't buy lenses and usually did not upgrade to higher end gear.

Those that bought a D7xxx or D500 are a different segment of the market. These are not cameras that compete at all with the level of body like a Canon R100.

A lens that sells for $400 is starting to get to the marginal end of IQ for a serious photographer. A $400 kit of body plus lens can't be generating much profit and has to be a horrible entry level experience. As was said, these cameras end up in closets when the user gives up and goes back to a phone.

Click to expand...

Interesting where the cut off is. I bought a D80 and 18-135mm kit from Best Buy. My first Nikon camera.

I guess that would have kind of been a mid tier camera at the time. It was definitely over 1000 dollars in the 00s.

Before that I did have a few point and shoot digital cameras, I guess they didn't factor into my DSLR decision... Nikon and Canon were basically the only 2 considerations for me then and I went with Nikon. I had borrowed my gfs oddball Nikon Coolpix 990 and kind of liked it at the time. I think somebody else I had a D1, my cousin maybe? Can't remember... I didn't know any Canon shooters at the time. So I got a Nikon when the time came. I remember doing research on everybody's favorite 00s photography site, Ken Rockwell.

For a few years there, I was happy and didn't buy additional lenses... but I learned the system/menus/style really well ... and eventually started buying more lenses.

Nikon was late to the game for mirrorless so I shot Fuji for quite awhile, then FF mirrorless size came down in both size and cost, and eventually migrated to the Z6.

However... if Fuji would have had a FF option, I don't think I would have moved BACK to Nikon from Fuji.

All that being said... I'm fine with Nikon not having a D3200 type cam or lower anymore... I def think they should have a better DX option though like my D80 of the time with top screen, etc... Basically a Z6 style in a DX body with IBIS, at minimum.

michaeladawson said:

Bob A L said:

If I'm not mistaken, (but frequently am) I thought you could put a $5,000 lens on a R100 if you wanted to. And as you say, its glass that makes the difference. I know I used numerous 400-500mm zooms on my lowly D40 for years.

Click to expand...

Just because you did it doesn't mean everybody else did/does.

Beatboxa is mostly correct. People that were buying those cheap DSLR kit cameras in Best Buy, Walmart, Costco, etc didn't buy lenses and usually did not upgrade to higher end gear.

Those that bought a D7xxx or D500 are a different segment of the market. These are not cameras that compete at all with the level of body like a Canon R100.

A lens that sells for $400 is starting to get to the marginal end of IQ for a serious photographer. A $400 kit of body plus lens can't be generating much profit and has to be a horrible entry level experience. As was said, these cameras end up in closets when the user gives up and goes back to a phone.

Click to expand...

Or on a Pawn shop showcase where I go and buy it and put it to use with my existing lenses that cost more than the body did new. Just bought a D3300 last year that has had my 150-500 permanently mounted and kept handy by the door to grab if something comes around that needs to be photographed.

Bob A L said:

michaeladawson said:

Bob A L said:

If I'm not mistaken, (but frequently am) I thought you could put a $5,000 lens on a R100 if you wanted to. And as you say, its glass that makes the difference. I know I used numerous 400-500mm zooms on my lowly D40 for years.

Click to expand...

Just because you did it doesn't mean everybody else did/does.

Beatboxa is mostly correct. People that were buying those cheap DSLR kit cameras in Best Buy, Walmart, Costco, etc didn't buy lenses and usually did not upgrade to higher end gear.

Those that bought a D7xxx or D500 are a different segment of the market. These are not cameras that compete at all with the level of body like a Canon R100.

A lens that sells for $400 is starting to get to the marginal end of IQ for a serious photographer. A $400 kit of body plus lens can't be generating much profit and has to be a horrible entry level experience. As was said, these cameras end up in closets when the user gives up and goes back to a phone.

Click to expand...

Or on a Pawn shop showcase where I go and buy it and put it to use with my existing lenses that cost more than the body did new. Just bought a D3300 last year that has had my 150-500 permanently mounted and kept handy by the door to grab if something comes around that needs to be photographed.

Click to expand...

You can find some very good deals on older DSLR cameras. The D300 is still available and is a very good camera. You might find a D500, but they are still in demand. The D600 received criticism in the forums for oil spots, but normal cleaning dealt with the dry lubricant spots pretty well. You can find some real bargains on the D600 which is a full frame camera not too different from the D700. The same is true for lenses - there are some real bargains if you are patient and look around. For example, there are at least six versions of the 70-300. The 70-300 VR is selling for around $100 right now - and it was $550 or so new. Only the AF-P version is newer and similar optically. The 200-400 f/4 VR is selling for around $700 now - and originally sold for $5000.

With older gear like this you may have more failures than normal. But at these prices, it's cheaper to buy again than repair the item.

That's it.

We'll jusrt have to see how things go going forward. I tend to think that the smartphone market will slow down also. They have things pretty much sorted out now and getting enough better from here forward to entice new converts is going to be a tougher road. I know for myself, my wife's iphone 11 in most instances produces images indistinguishable from my 13 pro and in the newer models there so far is nothing that encourages me to step up from my 13 pro. And with the current saturation level of quality phones, if it becomes a replace when defective only situation their sales won't hold up.

Bob,

I agree that we will have to see, but as for sales holding up, Apple has sold 230M+ phones each of the last 3 years, so certainly no decline is evident in new phone sales at this time. But there certainly is a decline in total cameras sold each year, and I can't see any reason while this will change.

Its pretty clear to me that the average age of mirrorless cameras buyers is up there, and there is no indication that younger people interested in photography will replace those older buyers as the older buyers age and no longer purchase new gear. Nikon's total revenue is significantly less than it was a decade ago, and no reason to think it will increase significantly in the future based on all the data I've looked at.

Best,

Den

P.S. We're a dying breed, lol!

Bob A L said:

We'll jusrt have to see how things go going forward. I tend to think that the smartphone market will slow down also. They have things pretty much sorted out now and getting enough better from here forward to entice new converts is going to be a tougher road. I know for myself, my wife's iphone 11 in most instances produces images indistinguishable from my 13 pro and in the newer models there so far is nothing that encourages me to step up from my 13 pro. And with the current saturation level of quality phones, if it becomes a replace when defective only situation their sales won't hold up.

Click to expand...

What do we need to see going forward, with regards to cameras or even cameras in phones? We have enough data to look backward.

Nikon provided this in a financial report: it is industry-wide (all brands combined):



And it's from 5 years ago. So for the current state, add 5 horizontal notches. And we also know the total numbers: we are now down to 6M units (total) in the industry, according to the same source of the data, CIPA.

And we also have additional charts from Nikon from later years. Like this one:



Note: even this above chart is 3 years old. We are currently in FY25/3.

By using those known data points and following the trend, we can guess what that same chart would roughly look like today:



That trend is not because cheap cameras weren't offered or because next year's phone would be so much better than this year's phone. That's because consumers stopped buying dedicated cameras because their phones were good enough. Phones have already reached the threshold of "good enough" for the majority of customers--and any continued or future improvement to phones just makes them even that much better than "good enough" and even less reason for a dedicated camera purchase.

But it doesn't stop there. Because that's units, not money. And money is how businesses succeed (not units); and money is why businesses like Nikon make products.

So let's suppose the entry level ("Non pro/hobbyist") cameras are $400 like in your original post.

And let's just assume that "pro/hobbyist" cameras average more like $1500. That means that only about 10% of the money would come from entry-level cameras. But then there's also additional overhead and thinner margins, because you need more factories, rent, workers, management, support, advertising, etc.

So as a result, Nikon gave us their plan:



They want to use their limited resources to compete for the customers who actually buy things and spend money and return for more. Because Nikon is a business.

In other words, if you owned a lemonade stand, where:

• you always sell 50 cups of lemonade for $1 each, to locals
• 10 years ago, you used to sell 500 cups of water for $0.10 each, to tourists
• you now sell only 25 cups water for $0.10 each, because most tourists started carrying a bottle of water everywhere
• cups cost you $0.03 each
• people who buy lemonade are repeat customers, because they're locals
• people who buy water were just visiting and don't return to buy anything else from you

And then the person across the street starts selling water for $0.05,
who cares?

You're in the lemonade business, and you're trying to make money. Water doesn't sell anymore because most people carry bottled water--you're not going to change that. And the person across the street is not taking any lemonade customers away from you. They're taking the few remaining transient water customers, and they're only earning $0.02 per customer.

Bob A L said:

Nikon is going to have to talk pretty hard to capture the new beginner that wants to get into ILC photo gear. I just saw a local Walmart ad and they have Canon R100 with kit zoom for $397. And once someone gets started with brand x, it's twice as hard to get them to upgrade to a different brand. And I don't think Nikon is in a position to match this.

Click to expand...

Not sure on which side of the argument this falls but I just got back from the Getty Museum in LA, lots of tourists of course and holiday weekend to boot. I saw a lot of cameras. The vast majority were consumer Canon models. I also saw Panasonic, Sony, and a few Leicas. I did not see a single Nikon all day. I was carrying a Canon M200 myself.

beatboxa said:

Bob A L said:

We'll jusrt have to see how things go going forward. I tend to think that the smartphone market will slow down also. They have things pretty much sorted out now and getting enough better from here forward to entice new converts is going to be a tougher road. I know for myself, my wife's iphone 11 in most instances produces images indistinguishable from my 13 pro and in the newer models there so far is nothing that encourages me to step up from my 13 pro. And with the current saturation level of quality phones, if it becomes a replace when defective only situation their sales won't hold up.

Click to expand...

What do we need to see going forward, with regards to cameras or even cameras in phones? We have enough data to look backward.

Nikon provided this in a financial report: it is industry-wide (all brands combined):



And it's from 5 years ago. So for the current state, add 5 horizontal notches. And we also know the total numbers: we are now down to 6M units (total) in the industry, according to the same source of the data, CIPA.

And we also have additional charts from Nikon from later years. Like this one:



Note: even this above chart is 3 years old. We are currently in FY25/3.

By using those known data points and following the trend, we can guess what that same chart would roughly look like today:



That trend is not because cheap cameras weren't offered or because next year's phone would be so much better than this year's phone. That's because consumers stopped buying dedicated cameras because their phones were good enough. Phones have already reached the threshold of "good enough" for the majority of customers--and any continued or future improvement to phones just makes them even that much better than "good enough" and even less reason for a dedicated camera purchase.

But it doesn't stop there. Because that's units, not money. And money is how businesses succeed (not units); and money is why businesses like Nikon make products.

So let's suppose the entry level ("Non pro/hobbyist") cameras are $400 like in your original post.

And let's just assume that "pro/hobbyist" cameras average more like $1500. That means that only about 10% of the money would come from entry-level cameras. But then there's also additional overhead and thinner margins, because you need more factories, rent, workers, management, support, advertising, etc.

So as a result, Nikon gave us their plan:



They want to use their limited resources to compete for the customers who actually buy things and spend money and return for more. Because Nikon is a business.

In other words, if you owned a lemonade stand, where:

• you always sell 50 cups of lemonade for $1 each, to locals
• 10 years ago, you used to sell 500 cups of water for $0.10 each, to tourists
• you now sell only 25 cups water for $0.10 each, because most tourists started carrying a bottle of water everywhere
• cups cost you $0.03 each
• people who buy lemonade are repeat customers, because they're locals
• people who buy water were just visiting and don't return to buy anything else from you

And then the person across the street starts selling water for $0.05,
who cares?

You're in the lemonade business, and you're trying to make money. Water doesn't sell anymore because most people carry bottled water--you're not going to change that. And the person across the street is not taking any lemonade customers away from you. They're taking the few remaining transient water customers, and they're only earning $0.02 per customer.

Click to expand...

Well reasoned out.

If the figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, then it is pretty damning evidence that the low-end market is just about dead and Nikon are correct with their strategy.

--
Lance B

I suspect the low end is pretty much addressed by camera phones.. and as basic point and shoot cameras they are pretty good - and I would say better than low end SLRs of yesteryear.

So yes I can see the argument it's not worth playing in the mirrorless low end market .. however where is the gateway product? Nikon I am sure we will need that if its not just to become a niche camera manufacturer.

After all I guess many of us remember starting into Nikon with our entry film SLRs - and I even have some of my original D/AFS lenses - one of which I still use on my z8 and z9.

So perhaps we should see Nikon optics on higher end camera phones - and brand gateway that way?

--
Simon
https://www.flickr.com/people/suffolkimages/

Interesting and I believe fairly typical. One thing's for sure as far as low end beginners ILC's, if Nikon quits building these, they are not going to sell many. So whatever market there is out there is handed to the companies that see fit to try.

Bob A L said:

Interesting and I believe fairly typical. One thing's for sure as far as low end beginners ILC's, if Nikon quits building these, they are not going to sell many. So whatever market there is out there is handed to the companies that see fit to try.

Click to expand...

Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity.

Having 0% share of a market that makes next to no profit, or tight/small margins is a good thing - especially if the market you are concentrating on is lower volume but much higher margin.

batleys said:

I suspect the low end is pretty much addressed by camera phones.. and as basic point and shoot cameras they are pretty good - and I would say better than low end SLRs of yesteryear.

So yes I can see the argument it's not worth playing in the mirrorless low end market .. however where is the gateway product? Nikon I am sure we will need that if its not just to become a niche camera manufacturer.

After all I guess many of us remember starting into Nikon with our entry film SLRs - and I even have some of my original D/AFS lenses - one of which I still use on my z8 and z9.

So perhaps we should see Nikon optics on higher end camera phones - and brand gateway that way?

Click to expand...

The "gateway products" today are cameras like the Z30, Z50, and Zfc.

Let's first think about what a "gateway product" or "entry product" is: it is a product that a consumer buys to "enter" into an ecosystem of future purchases. So this could be a Playstation: the customer later buys controllers, games, online subscription, etc. Or an iPhone: the customer later buys airpods, cases, apps, etc. If a customer does not buy anything in the future, it is not a gateway / entry product for that customer...because they did not enter into a system so much as they just bought a standalone product. Nikon glass on a phone wouldn't really be a gateway--it would be brand awareness.

Let's also distinguish between two main features found on hobbyist cameras that a beginner would want to explore as they learn photography:

1. Ability to change settings
2. Ability to change lenses

These are distinct features that sometimes get lumped together.

And finally, let's list the main "results" reasons people might want to upgrade beyond a phone (in no particular order), that all contribute to "the look":

1. Shallow DoF
2. Angle of view / zoom
3. Noise / low-light
4. Dynamic range
5. Sharpness

From the point of view of those above properties, let's compare the R100 to the Z50.

In terms of controls & ability to change settings, the cameras are not comparable. The R100 has a single dial, menus, and D-pad; while the Z50 has dual control dials, 2 custom front function buttons, and deep menu options. Even the Z30 has all of these. The R100 is designed for point-and-shoot in auto mode, just like the D3000's and D5000's of last decade; while the Z50 (& Z30) is more like the D7000's in everything except price. For a beginner trying to eventually learn settings, the Z50 would be far superior. And so this would be a better "gateway" camera.

In terms of lenses, The R100 and Z50 both have the ability to change lenses; and both Canon and Nikon have some "affordable" options. For most entry-level buyers, "affordable" might be 1-2 lenses that each cost $150-$500 (and $500 is a stretch...$200 would probably be average). The affordable options are the lower-range zoom lenses that are all along the lines of F/4-6.3 and the cheaper prime lenses around F/2 or F/2.8 (usually roughly somewhere between 16mm to 40mm).

And then, there's the results & look, which would be 100% dependent on the lenses. The latest iPhone 15 Pro Max has the following APS-C equivalent lenses:

• 9mm F/9 (ultrawide)
• 16mm F/4 (wide-standard)
• 80mm F/14 (telephoto)

And they also have intelligent systems to do things like seamlessly stacking multiple frames or images to improve the rest. Not at the pixel-peeping level and not to the same degree as a dedicated ILC; but certainly good enough for most people in most normal viewing conditions...like viewing on a phone. So for differentiated images, people need differentiated lenses. Let's first use the above iPhone specs as a baseline.

Ultrawide: neither system has an ultrawide quite this wide; and for many ultrawide shots, DoF typically doesn't really come into play anyway. But Canon has a 10-18mm F/4.5-6.3 and Nikon has a 12-28mm F/3.5-5.6; each is ~$300 and would offer roughly 1 stop improvement over the phones...were it not for additional variables like optical stabilization and intelligent multi-shot stacking that the phone has that the cameras/lenses don't, that should make up for this 1-stop difference. So is this differentiated? Maybe for sharpness when on a tripod and doing a large print and that's about it. Sharpness when pixel peeping, not today's normal viewing conditions. So no, not well differentiated for most scenarios.

Wide-Standard: Not only do both ultra-wide lenses above overlap here (though 1 stop behind the iPhone by this point), but the standard zooms essentially start around here and add optical stabilization to match the iPhone. Canon additionally has a 16mm F/2.8 for $250, which improves by 1 stop (though again, this is without optical stabilization, so maybe it will help shallower DoF. Except, you shouldn't exactly expect a bokehlicious shot at 16mm F/2.8). So ultimately, maybe sharpness when pixel peeping or printing an enlargement and that's about it. Very few beginners will see an actual difference.

Telephoto: The Canon and Nikon standard zooms when further cropped would be roughly 1 stop better than the iPhone, so this should make a visible difference in telephoto scenarios like portraits. Canon and Nikon both also have longer zoom offerings to push another stop, though these approach the higher-end of the budget at roughly $400. But yes, this one starts to be well differentiated.

So above, the only scenario with a practical difference for beginners would be telephoto using standard zooms, or when pixel peeping / printing enlargements. But there are more options: Both Canon and Nikon additionally offer some faster primes. Nikon has a 24mm F/1.7 for around $220. Both have a 28mm F/2.8 for roughly $250. And Canon has a 50/1.8 and Nikon has a 40/2, each for around $200. Additionally, if one wants to break past the budget, there are a whole host of lenses, like 85mm F/1.8 or long telephotos, etc. All of these will be well differentiated.

So a good gateway or entry for most beginner general photographers would be along the lines of a Z50 + 24mm F/1.7. A beginner portrait photographer could be Z50 + 40mm F/1.7. Or for a beginner landscape photographer, Z50 + 12-28mm F/3.5-5.6. A beginner wildlife or sports photographer might spend more on a longer lens. Or for anyone, replace the Z50 with a Z30 or Zfc. Here are some typical street prices:

• Nikon Z50 (used) = $575
• 40mm F/2 = $225
• 24mm F/1.7 = $225
• 12-28mm F/3.5-5.6 = $300

Those are the gateways where one actually "enters" hobbyist photography that's well differentiated from phones. The Canon R100 kit (and previously, the D3000 or D5000) isn't so much them "entering" but rather them standing just outside the photography door and realizing they bought the wrong ticket. It doesn't have the controls or IQ, and beginners easily get disillusioned and discouraged when their results don't match their expectations. That's when they realize they need to spend more on lenses for differentiation from their phone's photos, or more on a body to actually learn and change settings, or give up. And most will give up and use their phones.

Nikon's Z50, Z30, Zfc, and cheaper lenses serve as appropriate gateways today. I think what they're missing--though not urgently--would be eventual updates to these (if for no other reason than to drive used prices down a bit), and a handful of primes: maybe a 9mm F/4 and a 16mm F/2 or F/2.8.

Bob A L said:

We'll jusrt have to see how things go going forward. I tend to think that the smartphone market will slow down also. They have things pretty much sorted out now and getting enough better from here forward to entice new converts is going to be a tougher road. I know for myself, my wife's iphone 11 in most instances produces images indistinguishable from my 13 pro and in the newer models there so far is nothing that encourages me to step up from my 13 pro. And with the current saturation level of quality phones, if it becomes a replace when defective only situation their sales won't hold up.

Click to expand...

It's not a question of whether the smart phone market slows down. In this day and age everyone "needs" a smartphone. Many children even have phones these days.

You don't need a dedicated camera. People may not upgrade their phone every one or two years. But eventually they do. And when they do they are getting a better camera built in. In the hands of a rank beginner a smart phone is going to provide equal or better photos than some cheap entry level camera with cheap kit lens.

It shouldn't be any surprise at this point if the entry level camera market continues to shrink for a while. If I carry around a smart phone AND a dedicated ILC camera it is because I'm really interested in photography and odds are I'm not carrying around a bottom model. And yes, you can always find exceptions to this if you look enough.

Lance B said:

beatboxa said:

Bob A L said:

We'll jusrt have to see how things go going forward. I tend to think that the smartphone market will slow down also. They have things pretty much sorted out now and getting enough better from here forward to entice new converts is going to be a tougher road. I know for myself, my wife's iphone 11 in most instances produces images indistinguishable from my 13 pro and in the newer models there so far is nothing that encourages me to step up from my 13 pro. And with the current saturation level of quality phones, if it becomes a replace when defective only situation their sales won't hold up.

Click to expand...

What do we need to see going forward, with regards to cameras or even cameras in phones? We have enough data to look backward.

Nikon provided this in a financial report: it is industry-wide (all brands combined):



And it's from 5 years ago. So for the current state, add 5 horizontal notches. And we also know the total numbers: we are now down to 6M units (total) in the industry, according to the same source of the data, CIPA.

And we also have additional charts from Nikon from later years. Like this one:



Note: even this above chart is 3 years old. We are currently in FY25/3.

By using those known data points and following the trend, we can guess what that same chart would roughly look like today:



That trend is not because cheap cameras weren't offered or because next year's phone would be so much better than this year's phone. That's because consumers stopped buying dedicated cameras because their phones were good enough. Phones have already reached the threshold of "good enough" for the majority of customers--and any continued or future improvement to phones just makes them even that much better than "good enough" and even less reason for a dedicated camera purchase.

But it doesn't stop there. Because that's units, not money. And money is how businesses succeed (not units); and money is why businesses like Nikon make products.

So let's suppose the entry level ("Non pro/hobbyist") cameras are $400 like in your original post.

And let's just assume that "pro/hobbyist" cameras average more like $1500. That means that only about 10% of the money would come from entry-level cameras. But then there's also additional overhead and thinner margins, because you need more factories, rent, workers, management, support, advertising, etc.

So as a result, Nikon gave us their plan:



They want to use their limited resources to compete for the customers who actually buy things and spend money and return for more. Because Nikon is a business.

In other words, if you owned a lemonade stand, where:

• you always sell 50 cups of lemonade for $1 each, to locals
• 10 years ago, you used to sell 500 cups of water for $0.10 each, to tourists
• you now sell only 25 cups water for $0.10 each, because most tourists started carrying a bottle of water everywhere
• cups cost you $0.03 each
• people who buy lemonade are repeat customers, because they're locals
• people who buy water were just visiting and don't return to buy anything else from you

And then the person across the street starts selling water for $0.05,
who cares?

You're in the lemonade business, and you're trying to make money. Water doesn't sell anymore because most people carry bottled water--you're not going to change that. And the person across the street is not taking any lemonade customers away from you. They're taking the few remaining transient water customers, and they're only earning $0.02 per customer.

Click to expand...

Well reasoned out.

If the figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, then it is pretty damning evidence that the low-end market is just about dead and Nikon are correct with their strategy.

Click to expand...

Just in case, here are some sources:

• https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2020/20second_all_e.pdf
• https://www.nikon.com/company/ir/management/midtermbusiness/pdf/2022/0407e_all.pdf
• https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2023_e.pdf
• https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/s-2023_e.pdf

batleys said:

I suspect the low end is pretty much addressed by camera phones.. and as basic point and shoot cameras they are pretty good - and I would say better than low end SLRs of yesteryear.

So yes I can see the argument it's not worth playing in the mirrorless low end market .. however where is the gateway product? Nikon I am sure we will need that if its not just to become a niche camera manufacturer.

After all I guess many of us remember starting into Nikon with our entry film SLRs - and I even have some of my original D/AFS lenses - one of which I still use on my z8 and z9.

So perhaps we should see Nikon optics on higher end camera phones - and brand gateway that way?

Click to expand...

I'd say the gateway product is the DX lineup as a whole which Nikon hasn't fleshed out very well.

Their last "standard" camera in the Z50, was last decade before covid. Let that sink in.

Yes they put out the retro Zfc, but that was 2021. The Z30 non EVF camera in 2022...but clock is ticking.

How much DX marketshare has Fuji gobbled up from Nikon?

In the same time frame since 2020 Fuji has released...

X-T200

X100V, X100VI

X-T4, X-T5

X-T30II, X-T50

X-E4

X-H2, X-H2S

X-S10, X-S20

Nikon has released the Zfc and Z30, that's it! DX line has lots of your video/content creator segment, yet Nikon still don't have a DX camera with IBIS, Fuji has what, 9 of them at this point?

Maybe because I come from Fuji I'm used to variety and options in the DX lineup but...Nikon is woefully behind them.

Sometimes I think it would be better for Nikon to leave the DX market altogether, it could look better from a positioning/marketing standpoint than their paltry effort, esp since they do offer cheap FF options like Z5 on sale from 999 going back to 2021 when I picked it up for that price on sale. They could basically take the position like...yeah, we don't do DX anymore, but if you want to step up to the big boys in FF... we've got you covered.

I have the Zfc only because I can use it as a backup and take additional Nikon glass, if I were a DX system shooter only, no way I would shoot Nikon in 2024.

beatboxa said:

Nikon's Z50, Z30, Zfc, and cheaper lenses serve as appropriate gateways today. I think what they're missing--though not urgently--would be eventual updates to these (if for no other reason than to drive used prices down a bit), and a handful of primes: maybe a 9mm F/4 and a 16mm F/2 or F/2.8.

Click to expand...

Right, none of these cameras are competitive in 2024 for somebody starting out, that's more of the problem. I think they are urgently missing out, see above.

MarkP1903 said:

especially if the market you are concentrating on is lower volume

Click to expand...

I think this is an outdated view.

That market you are referring to is not lower volume any more. See the charts in my post above, provided by Nikon and based on CIPA (industry-wide) here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67727962

Today, the volume (units) between entry-level and hobbyist/pro is roughly even, if not skewed toward hobbyist/pro--maybe 67% hobbyist and 33% entry-level. And the revenue is probably closer to 80% hobbyist/pro and 20% entry-level. And the profit is probably even more extreme--maybe 90/10. This is industry-wide, and Nikon probably skews further than average.

One additional way (though not perfect) to estimate this can be to view CIPA lens breakdowns between full-frame and crop frame lenses: https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/s-2023_e.pdf

The volumes are roughly even. The revenue for FF lenses is roughly 4x that of crop frame.

Compare that to 10 years prior, where there were 3x as many crop lenses as FF, but revenue was closer to even. And this wasn't even the peak for crop lenses: https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/s-2013_e.pdf

If you don't trust lenses as a proxy for cameras, another way is to look at average camera values (values divided by units), also from CIPA: https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2023_e.pdf

Here's what the data looks like charted out:



(Consider that the first Nikon D3000 didn't launch until 2009 and the D40 first launched in 2006--this is the era when entry digital ILC's just started to exist). Average shipped values for mirrorless cameras today are higher than DSLRs were even in 2004; and they cannot be so high if entry-level models have significantly higher volumes than hobbyist or pro models, when you consider the value ranges they each occupy.

Collectively, these data points all tell the same story: the concept that cheap ILC's sell in higher volumes (more units) was true 10-15 years ago; but it's not true today. Today, at best, they sell evenly in terms of units; and they probably sell worse in terms of units.

beatboxa said:

MarkP1903 said:

especially if the market you are concentrating on is lower volume

Click to expand...

I think this is an outdated view.

That market you are referring to is not lower volume any more. See the charts in my post above, provided by Nikon and based on CIPA (industry-wide) here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67727962

Today, the volume (units) between entry-level and hobbyist/pro is roughly even, if not skewed toward hobbyist/pro--maybe 67% hobbyist and 33% entry-level. And the revenue is probably closer to 80% hobbyist/pro and 20% entry-level. And the profit is probably even more extreme--maybe 90/10. This is industry-wide, and Nikon probably skews further than average.

One additional way (though not perfect) to estimate this can be to view CIPA lens breakdowns between full-frame and crop frame lenses: https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/s-2023_e.pdf

The volumes are roughly even. The revenue for FF lenses is roughly 4x that of crop frame.

Compare that to 10 years prior, where there were 3x as many crop lenses as FF, but revenue was closer to even. And this wasn't even the peak for crop lenses: https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/s-2013_e.pdf

If you don't trust lenses as a proxy for cameras, another way is to look at average camera values (values divided by units), also from CIPA: https://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2023_e.pdf

Here's what the data looks like charted out:



(Consider that the first Nikon D3000 didn't launch until 2009 and the D40 first launched in 2006--this is the era when entry digital ILC's just started to exist). Average shipped values for mirrorless cameras today are higher than DSLRs were even in 2004; and they cannot be so high if entry-level models have significantly higher volumes than hobbyist or pro models, when you consider the value ranges they each occupy.

Collectively, these data points all tell the same story: the concept that cheap ILC's sell in higher volumes (more units) was true 10-15 years ago; but it's not true today. Today, at best, they sell evenly in terms of units; and they probably sell worse in terms of units.

Click to expand...

I merely meant lower volume than in previous years.


--
Nikon Z8, 24-120/4, 14-30/4, 50/1.8, 100-400/4.5-5.6, TC1.4x
Nikon Zfc, DX 16-50/3.5-6.3, 40/2, DX 24/1.7, DX 50-250/4.5-6.3, DX 18-140/3.5-6.3

batleys said:

I suspect the low end is pretty much addressed by camera phones.. and as basic point and shoot cameras they are pretty good - and I would say better than low end SLRs of yesteryear.

So yes I can see the argument it's not worth playing in the mirrorless low end market .. however where is the gateway product? Nikon I am sure we will need that if its not just to become a niche camera manufacturer.

After all I guess many of us remember starting into Nikon with our entry film SLRs - and I even have some of my original D/AFS lenses - one of which I still use on my z8 and z9.

So perhaps we should see Nikon optics on higher end camera phones - and brand gateway that way?

Click to expand...

I think the idea of lower end "high end" cameras as a brand gateway is probably a lot less important than is often suggested in these sorts of discussions.

We've all seen the stats in the past that the vast majority of people who bought the entry level DSLRs never upgraded them. Yet beyond that, I think there's another reality here that those of us who spend any amount of time on this and other forums are familiar with: people buying higher end cameras tend to do so after a fair bit of research and with a pretty open slate in terms of which model and system they're going to get into.

This is true even of people who did start with an entry level model. People who do start with a D3300 type of body and eventually want something more professional tend to by that time either buy into a system for a very particular reason or they at least approach it as as a decision to research. For instance, a person who got their Canon Rebel and had fun shooting some birds in the backyard and now wants a more serious wildlife camera might aim for Nikon because of the lens selection. Regardless, we see people posting about this sort of thing all the time and while occasionally the desire to stick with the brand they already know is one of the things they say, usually people regard these decisions are opportunities to evaluate things and make a good fresh decision.

The analogy is very far from perfect, but think of a person who bought a low end hatchback when they're 20 years old and is now getting ready to have a kid and wants to buy a minivan. If they had a positive enough experience with it they might want to stick with whatever manufacturer made their hatchback, but the reality is that they're getting ready to get such a different class of vehicle for such a different purpose than when they bought the hatchback that in most cases a person looks at this as an entirely fresh decision that's not all that related to the car they had before.

One of the biggest differences between the two scenarios is that in the case of a camera you are buying into an entire system with lenses and all of that, but the thing is that most APS-C lenses are not of sufficient cost or quality that they're going to keep a person from switching brands when the person is at a point that they're looking to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a more advanced camera. Heck, people in these situations are often upgrading specifically to gain more useful access to better lenses.