Revenant

It's my understanding that the X-M1 didn't sell that well, sitting in an awkward position inbetween the X-A and X-E series. It seems that most of those who cared about better build quality and X-Trans also wanted an EVF, while the rest was tempted by the lower price of the X-A series.

"If a certain tool affords you more keepers, you have more portfolio-worthy shots to choose from."

Of course, and there is absolutely no evidence that the difference in real-world performance is so large, that one of the brands consistently and for everyone produces more keepers than the other.

Prior investment is a pretty important reason, though. Also, ergonomics and handling are a matter of taste, and for many surely a reason to go with Canon.

And the much discussed disadvantage in IQ and AF, isn't really noticeable in the portfolios of skilled photographers. If it was, Canon shooters would be out of business.

There is a review site, can't remember which one at the moment, that re-calibrates the scale at regular intervals, lowering old scores as new cameras get increasingly better. That's an alternative to using an open-ended scale and grade "inflation".

So what money should companies use to cover R&D and other expenses, then, if not the revenue from sales?

Also, the declining camera market has nothing to do with the constant iteration of new products, because that's been the norm throughout the digital era. No, the sales decline has coincided almost exactly with the rise of the smartphone as the camera of choice for the masses. We are simply seeing a return to the sales volume we had before the digital era, when it was mostly enthusiasts who bought cameras. Just as the masses embraced digital cameras because of their convenience compared to film cameras, they are now abandoning those same cameras because of the even more convenient smartphones.

Exactly, there are no absolute scores, only scores relative to the current competition. The X-E2 was a more competitive camera back then, than the X-E2s is today.

When you think about it, it's difficult to give absolute scores, because at any given time you have no idea how a camera will compare to future cameras. The only solutions are to have an open-ended scale, or continuously re-calibrate the scale and lower old scores as new cameras get better and better. Or, like DPR, avoid the problem altogether by only comparing cameras to their contemporary peers, with the drawback that you really can't compare scores that were given several years apart.

I think it's the lack of announcements that leads DPR to that conclusion. The J5 was released over a year ago, the S2 and V3 over two years ago, and the AW1 almost three years ago. Replacements for all models are overdue.

It seems like Nikon is placing their bets on the fixed-lens DL compacts instead (that is, if they ever get a release date). After that announcement, a lot of people wondered about the future of Nikon 1, but AFAIK Nikon hasn't addressed those concerns.

With Panasonic's touch pad AF as implemented in some of their recent models, it's possible to select an AF point with your eye to the viewfinder. You don't need to see the screen, because you see the same thing in the EVF. It works surprisingly well.

I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I still think the main point of releasing an entry-level model is to expand the user base with new customers, and not just catering to the existing customers (the upgraders). Especially so for Nikon, since they have lost market share in recent years.

I think five models rather than nine would make more sense. Two well-specified consumer models, one DX (D5500 or D7200) and one FX (D750), plus three pro models, one DX (D500) and two FX (D810 and D5). That would give plenty of options for general photography as well as for sports, wildlife, landscape, studio and photojournalism.

I don't really expect a replacement model to be an upgrade compared to its predecessor. An update certainly, but not necessarily an upgrade.

I don't think the primary target audience for an entry-level model is the people who already own the previous model, and are looking to upgrade. It's targeted at newcomers who don't already own a system camera.
If you already own a D3300, Nikon wants you to buy a D5500 (or maybe even D7200). That's why they do things like including a swivel screen on the mid-range model, but not the entry-level one - to entice the customer to follow the upgrade path.

"Why should they waste time helping people who are not serious [...]"
"If I was a Sony shareholder I would be happy they rejected you."

What's up with the rudeness? How is that helpful to anyone?

I never said that it's an upgrade, and Nikon didn't use that word either. It's a new model replacing an older one, better in some respects and worse in others. If the total package is an upgrade or not depends on whom you ask.

The low end is not lost to Sony. Nikon is still #2 in system cameras with over 30% of the market, and the bulk of their sales is consumer DX DSLRs. Sony is #3 with 12% of the market. I'm pretty sure that Nikon sells more D3xxx and D5xxx series cameras than Sony sells across all their ILC models.

The Sony A3500 is basically an A3000 with a worse kit lens. It's only available in Australia, though.

The flip screen is one of the selling points of the D5xxx series. Nikon is kind enough to give the customer a reason to upgrade. ;-)

To be fair, battery life isn't just dependent on the battery itself, but also the energy consumption of the device using the battery. So Nikon could very well have made improvements in the camera as well.

The 22mm and the 11-22mm lenses are actually excellent, and offer very good value for money.
And the M3 has two control dials, not one. Plus an EC dial.

A magazine is a PDF file in its physical form. Somewhat reminiscent of toilet paper, but with more text and less texture.

As the name implies (when spelled correctly), it's somewhere in between the professional and consumer categories. Perhaps the same as 'semi-pro' or 'enthusiast'? The usefulness of these categories is debatable.