Nikon producing 35,000 Z9 cameras per month, rumor: 400,000 existing Z9 pre-orders

[starbase218]

Am I correct in reading this as an eco statement?

Am I correct in assuming you find that unimportant?

So production numbers should be as low as possible. And not just the Z9, but every product. Better yet, let’s not sell anything. Let’s hope nobody wants anything.

No... it's more that I just can't get that excited over production numbers, because of what I wrote. For me, the positive and negative aspects of our consumer society balance each other out. I've already unsubscribed from this thread as well. But I wanted to share these thoughts. You don't have to agree with them.

Sure. We’ll worry about how people earn a living later.

I sometimes worry about the existence of my country in 150 years time. Though I probably shouldn't be; The Netherlands is a modern, developed, prosperous country. There are other nations, however, that may pay a very high price - without actually being responsible.

But... that's not really what I'm talking about here (though it is a correct response to what you're saying). It's just that, for me, if the discussion is only about the number of cameras of some type being produced by some manufacturer (even if that's the manufacturer of my gear as well) then that subject is not as appealing to me.

If you don't understand that, fine.

People come here to get away from this kind of existential gloom and doom. You are entitled to your opinions but you don't have to ruin everyone's day with them

Err.. ok. Listen: if your day is ruined by reading something on the internet, you are WAY too sensitive. I will not take responsibility for this. It's totally ridiculous.

I have made my position clear, and I have also mentioned that if you don't agree, fine. I mean that. So if you feel bad when reading this, don't put that on me.

I thought you unsubscribed from the thread.

Oh, so that means I can't respond to something I started?

Also, is this your only reply? How about saying something like "I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion and bear no hard feelings"?

But I guess you do, for some reason.

You can do whatever you want, but if it's hypocritical I don't see why someone can't say as much.

I actually agree with you to an extent, but I also think the eco impact of a couple of cameras is minimal in the grand scheme of things. A $5000 camera is way less harmful than say, $5000 worth of fossil fuels (take your pick). Unfortunately the world operates on a consumption based system, so to a degree it doesn't even make sense to follow the camera industry if that's how you feel.

I know, and that is a good point. I am well aware that to an extent, what I say doesn't make sense: I'm excited about Nikon, the Z9 and its capabilities, but when it comes to production numbers of that Z9 - something that is obviously necessary - I feel a bit of... resistance.

But this isn't actually about the climate directly. It is just that, if we are only discussing production numbers, I feel a bit of a contradiction, given the most recent climate predictions, etc. Because it's not about the cameras anymore, or their capabilities; it's only about how many are going to be produced.

So I would rather be hypocritical about that, than - frankly - acting as if the problem doesn't exist. I don't always choose that (and that is why I can respect your choice). I think the reason I choose it here is because we are only talking about the numbers.

If I was a car lover and was on a car forum where there was a similar topic, I might have posted something along these lines there as well.

 

[RoyC01]

That's pretty phenomenal. Another 35 said that they are going to buy, and many said they are waiting for the next model.

Nikon is going to sell a boatload Z9's. Maybe not 400,000. But a hell of a lot.

Well I not so sure what a boatload will look like. Now I am one of the 95 and I might buy two to replace both of my D5s but considering how many people view DPR and between both Nikon Professionals and others there are only 95 takers speaking up after a week.......

I am starting to think that I should go ahead and get my accessories for the Z5 in house pretty soon as I could be shooting XMAS with the Z9.

Just a thought.

 

[Bill Ferris]

It is just that, if we are only discussing production numbers, I feel a bit of a contradiction, given the most recent climate predictions, etc. Because it's not about the cameras anymore, or their capabilities; it's only about how many are going to be produced.

Think of it this way, whether it was a D850 upgrade or a Z9 upgrade, Nikon was going to introduce at least one major new camera this year. Based on the messaging Nikon executives delivered around the introduction of the Z9, it's pretty clear they're prioritizing the development of new Z-mount mirrorless bodies and lenses over F-mount lenses and SLR bodies. So one new product goes into production while others stay on the drawing board or actually get discontinued. Also, given the 8-year decline of the digital ILC market, fewer dedicated cameras of any type are being manufactured this year than in previous years. And that trend will continue into the future until the market is so small that it doesn't really have much room to shrink.

If anything, it's the manufacture and sale of more than one billion smartphones every year that is the real tech product contributor to our global climate woes. If there's a cause worth fighting for, maybe it's that of lobbying the smartphone companies to make products that - as with digital cameras - can be used for a decade or longer without needing to be replaced.

Just a thought.

 

[sportyaccordy]

I know, and that is a good point. I am well aware that to an extent, what I say doesn't make sense: I'm excited about Nikon, the Z9 and its capabilities, but when it comes to production numbers of that Z9 - something that is obviously necessary - I feel a bit of... resistance.

But this isn't actually about the climate directly. It is just that, if we are only discussing production numbers, I feel a bit of a contradiction, given the most recent climate predictions, etc. Because it's not about the cameras anymore, or their capabilities; it's only about how many are going to be produced.

There are plenty of discussions about the camera and its capabilities. This is just a specific one about the estimated production figures.

So I would rather be hypocritical about that, than - frankly - acting as if the problem doesn't exist. I don't always choose that (and that is why I can respect your choice). I think the reason I choose it here is because we are only talking about the numbers.

If I was a car lover and was on a car forum where there was a similar topic, I might have posted something along these lines there as well.

I don't see why. Respectfully you being uncomfortable with this discussion doesn't mean you have to ruin it for the rest of us. When I see a thread about a topic I don't want to discuss I scroll past it. Again you are free to do what you want but avoiding topics you don't enjoy discussing seems like a more logical course of action. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with these posts.

 

[starbase218]

It is just that, if we are only discussing production numbers, I feel a bit of a contradiction, given the most recent climate predictions, etc. Because it's not about the cameras anymore, or their capabilities; it's only about how many are going to be produced.

Think of it this way, whether it was a D850 upgrade or a Z9 upgrade, Nikon was going to introduce at least one major new camera this year. Based on the messaging Nikon executives delivered around the introduction of the Z9, it's pretty clear they're prioritizing the development of new Z-mount mirrorless bodies and lenses over F-mount lenses and SLR bodies. So one new product goes into production while others stay on the drawing board or actually get discontinued. Also, given the 8-year decline of the digital ILC market, fewer dedicated cameras of any type are being manufactured this year than in previous years. And that trend will continue into the future until the market is so small that it doesn't really have much room to shrink.

If anything, it's the manufacture and sale of more than one billion smartphones every year that is the real tech product contributor to our global climate woes. If there's a cause worth fighting for, maybe it's that of lobbying the smartphone companies to make products that - as with digital cameras - can be used for a decade or longer without needing to be replaced.

Just a thought.

True on all accounts. But my reasoning is not all factual per se. It's more that we are talking about production numbers. Which to me seems like we are celebrating consumerism. And I don't feel entirely comfortable with that, given what is happening. This is my personal feeling, and my personal decision. But I feel it's worth sharing.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

 

[Currantos]

Wow, I am still amazed at this post.

Forget the numbers. Think logically.

Should Nikon UNDER or OVER estimate the number of cameras that will be bought.

Is it better to feed into a continuous demand and keep the price high and secondary market sparse. OR should you saturate the market quickly, satisfying the pent-up demand rapidly and potentially put downward pressure on the camera and allow people to wander off into used sales.

PLUS, the sooner the demand is satisfied and cries for Z9 die down the cries for the Z9 Mark II start. So you 'start the clock' on waiting for the update and people get restless saying Nikon is behind on producing the next version, how long can we wait.

Slowly feeding into the market the demand for the Z9 stays, it keeps focus on the Z9 and taking 2 to 3 years to satisfy just the basic demand will stave off the need to deliver the next version.

Think about it. Has any other camera manufacturer gone 'all in' and flooded the market? No. Everyone is apologizing for the delay in shipping and there is constant demand for the top products. R5/A1/R3, etc. They could but they don't and they never have.

Canon and Sony are larger manufacturers with greater resources and they did not go for that strategy. They too are 'milking it slowly', which is safer anyways from a business sense for a product like that and in today's market.

I think the numbers are highly exaggerated and unrealistic and misunderstood. I think a better interpretation is "Nikon thinks they will sell 3500 cameras as a first 'sale batch' before they produce another batch. However long it takes them to produce it at a monthly rate is really irrelevant. If they produce 3500/month well then, be that as it may and they are going to take only one month to produce that first run of 3500 that they intend to sell as a first offering. Once they have sold 3000 and the demand is only minimally slowing down or steady they will produce another number, maybe another 3500, again, at whatever irrelevant monthly rate it takes to get to that total.

There is the small danger of defectors but I think Nikon and other manufacturers are aware of that risk and accept it as reality and something to contend with.

In my opinion, others may disagree, the flagships are reasonably close enough that the number of people switching from flagship+lens lineup to another flagship+lens lineup is relatively small. In fact, some people are adding systems, as evidenced my many Nikonians admitting they are using Sony on the side, both lenses and cameras as a complement to the Z system.

 

[Bill Ferris]

It is just that, if we are only discussing production numbers, I feel a bit of a contradiction, given the most recent climate predictions, etc. Because it's not about the cameras anymore, or their capabilities; it's only about how many are going to be produced.

Think of it this way, whether it was a D850 upgrade or a Z9 upgrade, Nikon was going to introduce at least one major new camera this year. Based on the messaging Nikon executives delivered around the introduction of the Z9, it's pretty clear they're prioritizing the development of new Z-mount mirrorless bodies and lenses over F-mount lenses and SLR bodies. So one new product goes into production while others stay on the drawing board or actually get discontinued. Also, given the 8-year decline of the digital ILC market, fewer dedicated cameras of any type are being manufactured this year than in previous years. And that trend will continue into the future until the market is so small that it doesn't really have much room to shrink.

If anything, it's the manufacture and sale of more than one billion smartphones every year that is the real tech product contributor to our global climate woes. If there's a cause worth fighting for, maybe it's that of lobbying the smartphone companies to make products that - as with digital cameras - can be used for a decade or longer without needing to be replaced.

Just a thought.

True on all accounts. But my reasoning is not all factual per se. It's more that we are talking about production numbers. Which to me seems like we are celebrating consumerism. And I don't feel entirely comfortable with that, given what is happening. This is my personal feeling, and my personal decision. But I feel it's worth sharing.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

The camera is a consumer product that has been and can be used to tell powerful stories. Those stories can be for good or ill. In my opinion, the good that has come from the stories photographs have been used to tell outweighs the bad. A successful new camera means that storytelling tool will be around for a few more years. On the whole, that's a good thing.

 

[nikpharm]

But that is the total sales in their last annual report and here we are talking about flagship camera worth U$ 5500.

Are you implying there will be far fewer sales in USA than in Europe?

What I am saying is that 250 preorders for each state in USA and 1500 orders each, from 10 countries in Europe is a higher estimated guess than normal as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

 

[NickZ2016]

Some of the European dealers I've checked are requiring cash deposits. One without even giving a price. I'm not sure how many people are putting in multiple orders and paying multiple deposits.

 

[nikpharm]

Wow, I am still amazed at this post.

Forget the numbers. Think logically.

Canon and Sony are larger manufacturers with greater resources and they did not go for that strategy. They too are 'milking it slowly', which is safer anyways from a business sense for a product like that and in today's market.

I think the numbers are highly exaggerated and unrealistic and misunderstood. I think a better interpretation is "Nikon thinks they will sell 3500 cameras as a first 'sale batch' before they produce another batch. However long it takes them to produce it at a monthly rate is really irrelevant. If they produce 3500/month well then, be that as it may and they are going to take only one month to produce that first run of 3500 that they intend to sell as a first offering. Once they have sold 3000 and the demand is only minimally slowing down or steady they will produce another number, maybe another 3500, again, at whatever irrelevant monthly rate it takes to get to that total.

Finally someone thinking logically without any emotional attachment. I agree with your analysis.

Update: the monthly Nikon Z9 production is 3,500 cameras - Nikon Rumors

The correctly translated report said the initial planned production volume is going to be about 3500 units per month.

That is the output nikon was planning before even the announcement of Z9 which can be increased or decreased based on the demand.

As far as pre-orders are concerned, no one knows the exact number.

There was an older rumor that the wait time could be one year.

From the wait time rumor and the monthly production rumor, the guessed or estimated number derived is 40000 pre orders as it will take one year to complete those many orders based on 3500 units monthly.

 

[TOF guy]

as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

 

[TOF guy]

Think about it. Has any other camera manufacturer gone 'all in' and flooded the market? No. Everyone is apologizing for the delay in shipping and there is constant demand for the top products. R5/A1/R3, etc.

Which is a first for Canon and Sony

They could but they don't

Or could not because of Covid-19

and they never have.

Not that I remember

Canon and Sony are larger manufacturers with greater resources and they did not go for that strategy.

It’s not a Strategy

They too are 'milking it slowly', which is safer anyways from a business sense for a product like that and in today's market.

Giving the others early to the market the chance of grabbing more customers

I think the numbers are highly exaggerated and unrealistic

Misunderstood for 400000, the 3500 is from a more reliable source

--
Thierry - posted as regular forum member

 

[Marty4650]

If you haven't produced enough to meet initial demand, it means you won't have to discount your price for a very long time. It means you will get the most profit from each unit sold, and that you won't have a lot of money tied up in inventory costs.

It also means you can extend the shelf life of a new camera before having to replace it with an upgrade. The only risk you take is that some customers might not want to wait, and will buy something else instead. But that isn't very likely when you are dealing with very expensive system cameras with proprietary lens mounts. It would be more likely that you could lose sales for moderately priced fixed lens cameras.

 

[nikpharm]

as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

There are individuals who have different approach than yours.

 

[HeavyDuty]

as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

Just one here, too.

 

[Robodob]

as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

Just one here, too.

and here

 

[Alex Permit]

as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

Just one here, too.

and here

And here.

This may be a long thread. Should someone put up a poll?

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

There are individuals who have different approach than yours.

There are those who, like me, go to a trusted supplier with a single order.

Some suppliers in the UK ask for a refundable £50 or £100 deposit to discourage the placing of multiple orders.

 

[BasilG]

as pre-orders are placed in duplicates and triplicates to ensure early delivery.

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

Just one here, too.

and here

And here.

This may be a long thread. Should someone put up a poll?

Already going:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[nikpharm]

over generalization: many like me have put order in and just one

There are individuals who have different approach than yours.

There are those who, like me, go to a trusted supplier with a single order.

Some suppliers in the UK ask for a refundable £50 or £100 deposit to discourage the placing of multiple orders.

Exactly and that should be the proper procedure but in North America, most outlets don't ask for a deposit.--

Regards
MK