Nikon misses FY2014 annual forecast, stock punished

PB_PM

Sure the RED was developed quickly. Then again it isn't a mass market product either. RED doesn't need to retool factories for mass production, nor are they selling as many types cameras, lenses and accessories either.

The obsession to rush updates out faster and faster is beyond me. Why do they need to release major updates every year/every other year? After all, most updates in the camera industry are just incremental anyway. The rush to push products out the door has to be what lead to the D600 fiasco.

Ade

Well, according to many posters here the D600 must have taken "3-6 years" to develop, and yet it's still a lemon. Why bother?

It's not about a "rush to push products out the door". It's about competition in the marketplace.

PB_PM

Nikon has been making camera shutters for many years, other than rushing the design of that component, what could possibly be the reason for such a fault?

tc88

Nikon has been making camera shutters for many years, other than rushing the design of that component, what could possibly be the reason for such a fault?

Cost cutting to use a cheaper part. That's one and the only reason. If they didn't want to use a cheaper part, they could have used the part they used for ages as you say.

Golf007sd

The top innovators and spenders



2013


2012


Make's Nikon's allocation to R&D mute.

With respect to Apple..in relation to the capital allocated to R&D, they have let me down. Case in point, those of us "geeks" love our 17" laptops and they decided to discontinue making them. Yet, almost ever year or less, they keep introducing a new "MacBook Pro Air, 13 or 15 that, for the most part...only a slight improvement over the next. Moreover, it is for this reason, I only upgrade my iPhone when my contracts are up...which during that time frame close too two models have been introduced...to some extent. With respect to Nikon D7000-->D7100.

Intel R&D 2011 $6.6 billion, 2010, $5.7 billion...all that research and guess what January 2011: big flaw in their Sandy Bridge chipset....cost to repair and fix $700 million.

Intel reveals design flaw in Sandy Bridge chipset.

Hence, Nikon is not the only company that has made an error.

PB_PM

Nikon has been making camera shutters for many years, other than rushing the design of that component, what could possibly be the reason for such a fault?

Cost cutting to use a cheaper part. That's one and the only reason. If they didn't want to use a cheaper part, they could have used the part they used for ages as you say.

Yet we've never seen this kind of issue on a massive scale with entry level budget cameras like the D40/D40x/D60/D3xxx and D5xxx line. If any cameras were going to have super cheap parts, surely they would be the ones getting them! I simply don't buy that line of reasoning.

I see three real possibilities, a) rushed development of a new design, rather than using off the shelf parts, b) parts not properly tested, c) faulty manufacturing of the parts. None of which are acceptable for a body that originally shipped for $1999.

My personal guess is A, because the shutter on the D600 is much quieter than any pervious FX bodies.

Ade

There's another possibility, d) Nikon lowered their quality standards.

IMHO, Nikon knew of the D600's shutter problems long before the first camera ever shipped, but some bean counters decided it would be cheaper to just keep quiet & deal with a few customer complaints vs. actually fixing the underlying cause.

Msmoto

@Ade

I believe you may be correct… they may have figured a small percentage of issues, cheaper to deal with than redesign of the shutter and attempting to stay on release schedule… Retrospectively, we all know this was a huge mistake. It is like automobiles used to be manufactured with an expected number of defects per vehicle and then Lexus in the early years decided to try for a zero defect position, and of course this worked for several of their early years.

I would guess Leica produces cameras with the zero defect goal, and of course the price reflects this. The question for all the Nikon bean counters is what will produce the best economic returns, and sometimes they guess correctly, and sometimes…. a D600 results…LOL

sevencrossing

Ade Well a bicycle has more moving parts than an iPhone; should it take 5 years to design one as well

A lot longer


The velocipede was "developed" in about 1818
The safety bicycle about 1885

Ade

In case you haven't noticed, it's 2014 now.

PB_PM

Nikon lowered their quality standards.

That much is obvious, and stared to show up long before the D600 hit the market. Just compare the build quality of the D800 to the D700/D300. It's no contest, the D700/D300 feel way more solid overall. No mushy 10 pin socket, high quality rubber grips (the grip on my D800 is already wearing out in a few places, and I'm not talking about the glue), no major AF problems, no LCD panel problems, etc.

Ade

Incidentally, according to Nikon, development of the D1 began in 1996 and the camera shipped in 1999.

So even from the very beginning the development cycle was never 5-6 years. (The D1 was Nikon's first true flagship DSLR).

spraynpray

Nikon has been making camera shutters for many years, other than rushing the design of that component, what could possibly be the reason for such a fault?

Cost cutting to use a cheaper part. That's one and the only reason. If they didn't want to use a cheaper part, they could have used the part they used for ages as you say.

Yet we've never seen this kind of issue on a massive scale with entry level budget cameras like the D40/D40x/D60/D3xxx and D5xxx line. If any cameras were going to have super cheap parts, surely they would be the ones getting them! I simply don't buy that line of reasoning.

I see three real possibilities, a) rushed development of a new design, rather than using off the shelf parts, b) parts not properly tested, c) faulty manufacturing of the parts. None of which are acceptable for a body that originally shipped for $1999.

My personal guess is A, because the shutter on the D600 is much quieter than any pervious FX bodies.

Every company is constantly cutting costs, it is on of the biggest drivers towards increased profit. I wonder how much using the D800 shutter would have increased the cost by? No R&D overhead, that's for sure.

The D600 is the entry level FX camera which means the shutter has a larger sensor to cover so cost reducing that part is pretty high risk IMHO.

Ade

Every company is constantly cutting costs, it is on of the biggest drivers towards increased profit. I wonder how much using the D800 shutter would have increased the cost by? No R&D overhead, that's for sure.

The cost is probably not small. The shutter does not operate alone -- it is part of a larger integrated assembly which includes the mirror and the aperture drive.

On DX bodies and on the D600/610, the movements of the shutter, mirror and aperture are mechanically linked together. I.e., they can only (physically) operate in a particular sequence. This is the primary reason why (on these bodies) one can't change the aperture while in LiveView.

The D800 (and the D4) use a more advanced design which allows the shutter, mirror and aperture to be independently driven. Hence on these cameras it is possible to change aperture in LiveView. However this type of design requires an additional motor, increases the complexity of each part, and adds to the overall cost of the camera.

PB_PM

The D800 (and the D4) use a more advanced design which allows the shutter, mirror and aperture to be independently driven. Hence on these cameras it is possible to change aperture in LiveView. However this type of design requires an additional motor, increases the complexity of each part, and adds to the overall cost of the camera.

I read reports on Nikon hackers that the D800 actually uses a magnet, rather than a motor, to keep the mirror up in mirror lockup and live view. The advantage being reduced battery drain.

Ade

Hmm, not sure about that. I think when they say "magnet" they actually mean a solenoid (which works using an electro-magnetic field).

Also they are probably referring to the shutter, not the mirror. I believe the mirror is held up mechanically rather than using magnets, well before the D800's design. I.e., this is the same design for the D7000, D700, etc.

So the battery has not been required to hold up the mirror for a long while. Probably not since the D200 or D300.

You can test this way: on the D700, remove the lens and go into sensor cleaning mode to lock up the mirror. Then remove the battery. The shutter will close but the mirror will stay up. So no power is required to hold the mirror up. Re-insert the battery and press the shutter button to reset.

PB_PM

Yes, I got my facts mixed up there. They were actually talking about how the 5D MKII & III holds the mirror up vs. the D800/D4.

Ade

Oh, ok. I don't know much how the Canons work. I think Canon can make their shutter/mirror assemblies simpler, smaller and faster because unlike Nikon they don't require an aperture motor + mechanical aperture linkages in the body.

TaoTeJared

Nikon has been making camera shutters for many years, other than rushing the design of that component, what could possibly be the reason for such a fault?

Cost cutting to use a cheaper part. That's one and the only reason. If they didn't want to use a cheaper part, they could have used the part they used for ages as you say.

Yet we've never seen this kind of issue on a massive scale with entry level budget cameras like the D40/D40x/D60/D3xxx and D5xxx line. If any cameras were going to have super cheap parts, surely they would be the ones getting them! I simply don't buy that line of reasoning.

I see three real possibilities, a) rushed development of a new design, rather than using off the shelf parts, b) parts not properly tested, c) faulty manufacturing of the parts. None of which are acceptable for a body that originally shipped for $1999.

My personal guess is A, because the shutter on the D600 is much quieter than any pervious FX bodies.

Every company is constantly cutting costs, it is on of the biggest drivers towards increased profit. I wonder how much using the D800 shutter would have increased the cost by? No R&D overhead, that's for sure.

The D600 is the entry level FX camera which means the shutter has a larger sensor to cover so cost reducing that part is pretty high risk IMHO.

Seeing how quick the new 610 bodies came out, I'm lead to believe it was a manufacturing/installation issue Not an actual "part" issue. It takes a long time to re-design and create shutters and then manufacture them than to update a small part of the process. Since there was just 1 in 10 or fewer camera's with issues (reported), that seems like some lubricant nozzle had an issue. That is a very different issue than a "bad part."

I don't see Nikon cheapening any bodies and actually quite the opposite and making them much better. Longer shutter lives, more weather sealing on lower models, and a slew of small things that are just better. People are demanding better quality across the board and companies are delivering. Of course part of the issue is that people keep demanding lower prices which is completely at odds with better quality.

I do see more of the misguided rationalization that plastics are not as good as metal and many other comments about what is "better" that really are misconceptions. To many people associate plastic with something like a disposable tape dispenser rather than a Glock handgun or the handles on heavy duty tools and the like.

From all the issues we have seen in the past 3 years, I really do believe they are due to improper quality controol and testing of assembly lines. If it was a design failure, you would have a complete breakdown of the camera, and that has not happened.