D40, a mistake, or just missed opportunities for Nikon?

[frozenlight]

Why do you think it's about your needs....or anyone else's for that matter?
Nikon's mistake was to limit the potential user base ( = "buyers").

No. Adding the motor feature (that is: adding COST) would have REDUCED the demand for the product, not increased it. Believe me, Nikon are a lot smarter than you give them credit for... they did the market research to figure this out.

Sensorly yours...

 

[toomanycanons]

Die, thread, die!

 

[CM_laptop]

Why do you think it's about your needs....or anyone else's for that matter?
Nikon's mistake was to limit the potential user base ( = "buyers").

No. Adding the motor feature (that is: adding COST)

The cost is so neglible, that is a blatant lie. Thus the rest of your post is fallacy.

would have REDUCED the demand for the product, not increased it. Believe me, Nikon are a lot smarter than you give them credit for... they did the market research to figure this out.

Sensorly yours...

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[CM_laptop]

This is just getting to much by now...

Yep, it's way beyond your comprehension.

Now go back to tugging at your little toy, kid

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[frozenlight]

TV, here's a question for you: If Nikon had included the motor in the D40, kept it the same size, added 40 grams and $40 to the price, would you have still bought it?

Do you think Nikon DID NOT do this market research ahead of time to figure this out?

Do you think if the D40 was considered a "mistake" within Nikon they would have gone on to repeat that same "mistake" in further product iterations?

Again, these points have been raised and addressed already, but thx for bumping the thread!

Do you think that the demand for D40SUPERDUPER (Cost = $450 PLUS ???) is the sum of the actual demand for the D40 ($450) as released PLUS the unproven "demand" from the legacy glass owner community? (Hint: It's not).

.

Not following you here. D40SUPERDUPER market would have been:

(Current D40 users) - (those put off by $20-$60 higher price tag) + (legacy glass/higher body users looking for a second body) + (owners of the Pentax/EOS/Olympus/Sony low-end bodies who would have bought a D40 instead if they could get all that cool AF craigslist glass for it) + (Thom Hogan) + (people who read Thom Hogan).

(although I think Thom bought one anyway )

No. I disagree with your math. It's actually this:

(Units of D40 Actually sold to date)

• (those units not sold at $20-$100 higher price point)

All the other terms in your analysis are actually irrelevant but it's OK I know you are joking... you are joking right?

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[moving_comfort]

Die, thread, die!

.

Feel compelled to enter, toomanycanons? I'm flattered!

 

[frozenlight]

There are folks who claim that adding a in-built focus motor could have been done at zero cost. That's nonsense because it adds logistics and supply chain complexity for parts, manufacturing complexity for those parts, assembly resources, assembly time and none of that is FREE.

Now even if the in-built motor could be added at zero initial cost (it can't) there is the real issue of life-cycle cost...

The focus motor is one more component that can fail...

Failures mean warranty repairs and additional costs for Nikon.

Additional product complexity COSTS something.

Who do you think pays for that???

Nikon left the focus motor out to save cost so it could offer the entry-level product at the lowest price possible to achieve it's strategic product objectives.

This was a very well thought out product. It was so well thought out they repeated the "mistake". It is quite laughable to suggest that such a great commercial success was in any way a "mistake". No way were Nikon going to load features into this compact product, add cost, and gut sales of their higher end bodies.

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[frozenlight]

I know there are many threads on this subject but i thought I would chip in here...

I bought the the D40 3 years ago for two main reasons 1) The hope of better IQ and 2) the 'opportunity' to use different lenses at a relatively affordable price.

I was aware of the limitations around the lens options, but as a photography newbie, it wasn't really an issue.

It did both of those things for me...and by luck for (and Nikon I guess), a lot more too...

The manual and the controls of the D40 get me curious and experimenting was the natural next step.

From experimenting, came the 'need' for more lenses which brought more experimenting and more satifaction from photography, to the point it is now a hobby.

This year I added a D90, an SB-600 and another lens to my bag and I believe all as a result of the D40. If I gone straight for a D80 (no D90 at the time) I would not have developed the same curiousity as the manual and controls are diffrent and not aimed directly at newbies.

Isn't this what Nikon wanted? We can talk all day about the tech side of things and the no in camera motor, but it was not important to me (and i assume many thousands of others) at the time of purchase.

The D40 got me into photography in a nice gentle way and I now have some gorgeous photos that I will treasure for years to come.

Neil.

Great story Neil.

I can't say for sure but it's certainly my contention that you, and folks just like you, were exactly the market segment that Nikon had in mind for the D40 and its subsequent iterations. Their success in meeting the collective need for an entry-level product, a "hook" if you like, is a matter now of commercial record... a very successful commercial record.

Enjoy your new hobby and thanks for the post.

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[CM_laptop]

No. I disagree with your math. It's actually this:

(Units of D40 Actually sold to date)

• (those units not sold at $20-$100 higher price point)

.....no idea what you're babbling about; or you're just throwing around figures stemming from your ignorance about the subject (cost of implementation of motor).....or....

All the other terms in your analysis are actually irrelevant but it's OK I know you are joking... you are joking right?

Nope, it is you who is the joke.

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[frozenlight]

There are a lot of different things Nikon might have been trying to do (strategically) with the D40. Eating their own lunch by providing a fully featured camera at an entry level price point probably isn't what they were after.

You got it. Nikon are a lot smarter than many give them credit for.

.

No, but eating Canon's lunch is what they were after. Keeping the motor out of the body is listed #1 in the Cons section of dpreview's summary in their review of the D40:

• No lens motor in body means non-AF-S/AF-I lenses are manual focus only
• Disappointingly RAW+JPEG setting only records Basic quality JPEG's
• No status LCD panel on top of camera (we hate to see these go)
• No exposure or white balance bracketing
• No hard buttons (without customizing) for ISO or White Balance
• No depth-of-field preview
• Occasional visibility of moire artifacts (although seldom)
• Fixed exposure steps (1/3 EV)
• Disappointing automatic white balance performance in incandescent light
• No RAW adjustment with supplied PictureProject, only simple conversion
• Limited image parameter adjustment (especially for color saturation)

The Cons (and pros) are what a lot of potential buyers skip to first when deciding between, say, the D40 and the entry EOS models.

Based upon the actual commercial success of the D40 et.al. the market clearly ignored the first listed bullet point BECAUSE it was IRRELEVANT to the target market segment purchaser. QED.

That's not just incorrect; that's a silly (non) argument; you can't know or say that by any strecth.....except by (maybe) blind & paranoid defense of your purchase.

I don't need to defend my position here... a gentleman who fits the target market segment provides adequate supporting evidence:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=34114801

QED.

Nobody's criticizing your purchase.

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[CM_laptop]

thank goodness you are not involved in the economics of anything .

Nobody is asking you to justify your purchase.....are you a Nikon shill?

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[frozenlight]

You're responding to cm_laptop, but attributing my rant about getting a cheap backup body to him. Make sure you know who you're angry at, I don't think he said that.

Opps, sorry about that, meant accidently hit return rather than back space.

But as to your point, my error but except for the back-up observation, I'm still right.
No you aren't.

The point is; & has always been, that the D40's success is in spite of Nikon's mistake.

It was a glaring mistake; one that has automatically omitted a segment of the market from purchasing this class of cameras......which segment has not necessarily opted for an available higher end Nikon body.

Nikon omitted you on purpose. You are not part of the target market segment and the commercial success of the D40 et. al. vindicates their position.

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[CM_laptop]

Neil has not proven any of your points; simply because you are not making any sensible points.

No disrespect intended; but your blind loyalty is is bodering on shilling; & your turning arguments upside down for your convenience is not helping the discussion.

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[CM_laptop]

Nikon omitted you on purpose. You are not part of the target market segment and the commercial success of the D40 et. al. vindicates their position.

That's crazy.

Which is the same as "you" are crazy. I mean it; who in his right mind would suggest that a camera maker would purposefully try and alienate any potential market segment?

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[chris33]

If I want your opinion I ask for it.

Chris

This is just getting to much by now...

Yep, it's way beyond your comprehension.

Now go back to tugging at your little toy, kid

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

 

[frozenlight]

There are a lot of different things Nikon might have been trying to do (strategically) with the D40. Eating their own lunch by providing a fully featured camera at an entry level price point probably isn't what they were after.

You got it. Nikon are a lot smarter than many give them credit for.

.

No, but eating Canon's lunch is what they were after. Keeping the motor out of the body is listed #1 in the Cons section of dpreview's summary in their review of the D40:

• No lens motor in body means non-AF-S/AF-I lenses are manual focus only
• Disappointingly RAW+JPEG setting only records Basic quality JPEG's
• No status LCD panel on top of camera (we hate to see these go)
• No exposure or white balance bracketing
• No hard buttons (without customizing) for ISO or White Balance
• No depth-of-field preview
• Occasional visibility of moire artifacts (although seldom)
• Fixed exposure steps (1/3 EV)
• Disappointing automatic white balance performance in incandescent light
• No RAW adjustment with supplied PictureProject, only simple conversion
• Limited image parameter adjustment (especially for color saturation)

The Cons (and pros) are what a lot of potential buyers skip to first when deciding between, say, the D40 and the entry EOS models.

Based upon the actual commercial success of the D40 et.al. the market clearly ignored the first listed bullet point BECAUSE it was IRRELEVANT to the target market segment purchaser. QED.

That's not just incorrect; that's a silly (non) argument; you can't know or say that by any strecth.....except by (maybe) blind & paranoid defense of your purchase.

Nobody's criticizing your purchase.

I don't have the time to explain the principles of marketing strategy and segmentation. So instead I'll suggest a reference for you: "Marketing Strategy" by Philip Kotler. An excellent source for the background and logic behind the decisions that manufacturers make like this.

We (and I specifically) cannot know for sure what Nikon's marketing strategy was here for the D40, however, I think that it's fair to conclude that Nikon themselves do NOT consider the D40 concept a "mistake", not at all. The D40 et. al. is a commercial success and folks from the apparent target market segment have spoken elsewhere in this thread, and in other threads over the past couple of years, to confirm that the legacy glass issue was a non-issue for them. Folks who come from the legacy glass camp clearly DO see it as an issue but satisfying that "demand" is not a priority for Nikon after they have run all of their market research and financial analysis, costings, revenue projections, and investment analysis (and you can be sure they did all of this).

I understand that you are frustrated that you didn't get what "you" wanted.

I'm pretty sure that Nikon got what "they" wanted. It seems clear that an awfully large number of entry-level photographers also got what "they" wanted.

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[frozenlight]

No. I disagree with your math. It's actually this:

.....no idea what you're babbling about; or you're just throwing around figures stemming from your ignorance about the subject (cost of implementation of motor).....or....

Unfortunately it is this simple:

(Units of D40 Actually sold to date) minus (those units not sold at $20-$100 higher price point).

Again, it really doesn't matter what the number is with respect to incremental cost... adding the motor is absolutely NOT a zero cost upgrade because:

1. It adds parts cost (materials)
2. It adds assembly complexity (additional time & steps)
3. It adds assembly cost (machines)

4. It adds logistics and supply chain complexity (suppliers of parts and/or sub-assemblies)
5. It adds additional failure modes (impact upon warranty provisions)

Some of these are fixed costs, others are variable, they are certainly NOT in aggregate equal to zero.

The point is the demand curve is not upward sloping... demand does not go up as price goes up. That would be a neat trick indeed. It does happen sometimes with luxury goods but not with digital cameras... at least I have never seem it. There may be some demand REPLACEMENT going on but in aggregate I'm betting that Nikon ran the analysis and concluded that adding cost/complexity led to the normal demand response.

All the other terms in your analysis are actually irrelevant but it's OK I know you are joking... you are joking right?

Nope, it is you who is the joke.

Seriously, I thought he added a few of those terms as a joke.

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[frozenlight]

Why do you think it's about your needs....or anyone else's for that matter?
Nikon's mistake was to limit the potential user base ( = "buyers").

No. Adding the motor feature (that is: adding COST)

The cost is so neglible, that is a blatant lie.

A lie? Oh please. I'm entitled to an opinion here like everyone else.

So you agree it would add SOME cost then apparently... OK great so we are agreed then it's not a zero cost upgrade. Thanks for accepting my argument on this issue.

An understanding then of pricing and supply/demand economics is needed then in order to proceed. There are probably many excellent books at your local library. Generally speaking, for most products and services, we find that as prices go up demand for those goods or services goes down in the aggregate. This is intuitively obvious to most people. In this case we could speculate about the price elasticity of the demand curve and how the demand curve might shift given a different feature set but we really don't need to. I think it is pretty safe to conclude that before they invested millions of dollars and man hours into the D40 concept and product development they also modeled the demand economics and figured out the best combination of price and relevant features that generated the highest economic return on their investment. That's what rational investors do. I have worked extensively in Japan for Japanese clients and I can assure you that they are very careful and contemplative folks who pay strict attention to details and don't make this stuff up over sushi and sake after work.

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[frozenlight]

Nikon omitted you on purpose. You are not part of the target market segment and the commercial success of the D40 et. al. vindicates their position.

That's crazy.

Which is the same as "you" are crazy. I mean it; who in his right mind would suggest that a camera maker would purposefully try and alienate any potential market segment?

Continuing personal attacks are noted.

Perhaps you do not understand the concept of market segmentation. Segmentation breaks a market into logical units. These units have some meaningful defined differentiating characteristic. To suggest that one segment "alienates" another is a misconception.

Nikon's specific strategic objectives here are unknown to me but it doesn't matter in concept because it seems that we have enough information to guess that from their product feature set decisions they were not concerned at all about the legacy glass issue. So, they seem to have targeted a market segment that didn't care about this either. New users perhaps? Folks that had NEVER owned a Nikon DSLR perhaps? Promoting that user segment was clearly more important to the overall marketing plan than satisfying the "demand" of a MUCH SMALLER pool of legacy glass owners.

There are BILLIONS of people on the planet that DON'T yet own a Nikon DSLR. There are perhaps a no more than a few million (if that) who value the legacy-glass-on-a-stripped-down-body concept.

Now which market segment would you try to capture?

--
Sensorly yours...

 

[frozenlight]

thank goodness you are not involved in the economics of anything .

Continuing personal attacks noted.

That's funny. I make a healthy independent living doing just that : )

--
Sensorly yours...