NIKON...MIRROR LESS NOW WITH FIRMWARE UPDATE

WestEndFoto

flip said:

Nikon's silence since the d850 and Canon's recent aggressive statements to bring a ff mirrorless system to market are def worrisome as far as nikon's future in photography is concerned. Can they stay a relatively healthy stand-alone company in even 2 years.

I recently counted 36 lenses on their website they could easily discontinue as obsolete. The fact that they still have them in inventory speaks to that they are unable to move beyond the past but also that they are willing to sell less than favorable optics to the public. They may have produced too many and cant get rid of them. slow moving inventory reflects on poor decisioning and implies a lack of market perception. Jit inventory control still has value and staying lean and immediately responsive to the market are very valuable traits.

Why do they need 6 different 18-55 dx lenses. Beyond me. It's crazy.

If i looked at my technology and saw nothing formative and ingenious for the near future, i would def consider selling assets, patents and know how and exiting, getting investors a reasonable return before the bottom falls out.

Dont see how they can compete with canon at the lead and sony and fuji biting at their heels. They all have nikon in their sites.

I hope others have more positive thoughts on this than I.

I've been in companies where there was vision but inadequate focus, lack of innovation or ability to execute in a very competitive market. Nice ceo but couldnt get it done. I left.

To do well and stay at the top you need all those ingredients, not just a few or one. It annoys me to no end that nikon is not able to function on all cylinders all the time rather than once every few years.

One can say that the slower process is cultural, but if that is the case, how are canon and sony moving so quickly. Excess cash flow for r&d? Yes that's part of it.

They are not yet a luxury seller like leica and it's not clear to me how they modify their image to be perceived as one unless they start a new branding program for ultra end products. That did not save hasselblad.

Still, i do really enjoy many of their products and hope they can innovate themselves out of their limitations to at least stay the course which is probably what management is hoping for.

C'est la vie.

Despite my earlier whining, I am more optimistic about Nikon than that. Despite the fact that I think they are repeating their Canon auto-focus moment, Nikon survived that and will likely survive this one.

PB_PM

flip said:

I recently counted 36 lenses on their website they could easily discontinue as obsolete. The fact that they still have them in inventory speaks to that they are unable to move beyond the past but also that they are willing to sell less than favorable optics to the public. They may have produced too many and cant get rid of them. slow moving inventory reflects on poor decisioning and implies a lack of market perception. Jit inventory control still has value and staying lean and immediately responsive to the market are very valuable traits.

Why do they need 6 different 18-55 dx lenses. Beyond me. It's crazy.

Those older lenses are avaible for two reasons, either they are still selling well or they aren’t selling at all and are sitting in inventory. I doubt any/many of the non-AF-S lenses are still in production. Those lenses might also be popular in regions with people who are not as wealthy as NA, Japan and Europe. What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing?

As for the 18-55mm DX lenses, that’s most likely due to over production that caught them off guard when sales started to tank a few years ago. The 18-55 might seem like a silly lens to enthusiasts, but they are the most produced and sold Nikkors ever made, not even the cheap nifty fifties even come close. I doubt of them any other than the two AF-P models are in production, the rest are old stock.

BabaGanoush

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception. Talk to business people and they will tell you that perception has real market value. That's especially important for Nikon which sells itself as a prestige optics company because, unlike Canon, Nikon has many fewer other product lines apart from cameras and lenses. Now Nikon does make a few really good lenses, but it also makes a whole bunch of mediocre ones and even a few pretty awful ones. So, once Nikon comes out with a new lens that replaces and improves on an older legacy version, they really should take the older version off their principal product list and move it to an archive they maintain for obsoleted products. Their updated product list should always focus on the very finest of what they have to offer in order to maintain the value of the company's hard earned reputation. Touting old products that don't meet the highest standards actually dilutes the value of the Nikon brand.

Pistnbroke

Just setting up my lenses for a trip to the Somme bird watching and again as I have found in the past the fine focus adjust has moved slightly. The Tamron tap in console showed me how much the FFA varies with focal length and distance. The only answer is mirror less with the focus on the sensor .
Lets hope Canon banging on about new introductions will spur Nikon to hurry up ...100 th birthday year what a joke.

BabaGanoush

"Just setting up my lenses for a trip to the Somme bird watching and again as I have found in the past the fine focus adjust has moved slightly."

Same thing happened to me with my D800: I was about to go on a trip and discovered the micro adjustment settings for all my lenses had changed, not a lot, but enough to produce noticeable degradation of the IQ. I did not have time to retune the lenses before I left, so instead I took my Sony A6000 (at the time). Soon after I got home from the trip I sold my D800 and (as Thom Hogan puts it) began a serious "leak" to mirrorless systems. When the D500 was announced I hoped it would solve the tuning issue for me, but the engineering "solution" Nikon came up with in that camera was a sad joke. I was slightly tempted by the D850 which is, to all appearances, a great camera, but it too offers no solution to the tuning issue, so I am passing on it and waiting for Nikon to release a mirrorless system. But, time is running out, and Sony offers at least two mirrorless cameras that suit my needs. I will not wait too much longer for Nikon to act. As I posted earlier, I have begun to sell off my Nikon FX lenses, the ones I used with my D800. I'm keeping only the lenses I use on my D7200, however, that too is only for the near term 1-2 years out.

WestEndFoto

BabaGanoush said:

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception. Talk to business people and they will tell you that perception has real market value. That's especially important for Nikon which sells itself as a prestige optics company because, unlike Canon, Nikon has many fewer other product lines apart from cameras and lenses. Now Nikon does make a few really good lenses, but it also makes a whole bunch of mediocre ones and even a few pretty awful ones. So, once Nikon comes out with a new lens that replaces and improves on an older legacy version, they really should take the older version off their principal product list and move it to an archive they maintain for obsoleted products. Their updated product list should always focus on the very finest of what they have to offer in order to maintain the value of the company's hard earned reputation. Touting old products that don't meet the highest standards actually dilutes the value of the Nikon brand.

You know, I bought the 20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28 2.8 and 50 1.2 (All the AIS manual focus lenses) brand new a few years ago. Despite being designed in the early 1980s, they are very sharp stopped down. Wide open, not so much. The two exceptions are the 20 2.8 (weak) and the 28 2.8 (strong even wide open). They make an excellent landscape set. Shooting these 35 year old lenses and seeing the performance that they are capable of on my D800 and now D850 enhances the reputation of Nikon in my view.

My 200 f/4.0 micro from 1993, but bought brand new a few years ago is also impressive.

But that said, I do hear you regarding perception. As impressive as my 200 is, it is still sadly in need of an upgrade.

PB_PM

BabaGanoush said:

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception.

Apparently it does, because they aren’t dumping the stuff. Either Nikon doesn’t share your view, or something else is holding them, back. I’m sure Nikon is paying a good chunk of money to hold that inventory in warehouses, so I’m sure they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

mhedges

PB_PM said:

BabaGanoush said:

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception.

Apparently it does, because they aren’t dumping the stuff. Either Nikon doesn’t share your view, or something else is holding them, back. I’m sure Nikon is paying a good chunk of money to hold that inventory in warehouses, so I’m sure they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

They may not be holding on to it for legitimate business reasons. There's also things like stubbornness and pride. Companies routinely discard of old stock that isn't selling (and may never sell) so they can get it off the books and eliminate inventory costs. Apparently Nikon does not, if they were still carrying 30 year old NOS products as mentioned above.

Like others have said, I think Nikon's product lineup is broader than the declining market can support. And a Nikon mirrorless (while needed) will just make that worse. There will basically be three systems going by then. Seems like too many to me.

BVS

There are probably legitimate reasons for keeping older lenses around, such as:

- Just because they're old doesn't necessarily mean they're bad. They could still be good lenses, and if they work why not keep them. Lenses don't go out of date as quickly as camera bodies do.

- Some of the older lenses were developed during the film era (correct me if I'm wrong), and Nikon still makes film cameras, and some people still shoot film, so it makes sense to keep them. The fact that they also work on modern DSLRs is a bonus.

- There's an artistic side to photography as well as a technical side, and the older lenses sometimes give a different 'look' than highly corrected modern lenses, which may appeal to some people.

- It's an interchangeable lens system, so the more options the better. Plus they might cover niche gaps in the lineup that don't get updated often and would otherwise have no lenses.

Note that I'm speaking in general and haven't gone through the list of lenses.

As for the six different 18-55s (as well as the multiple 55-200/300s), I think they should probably dump the older AF-S versions and keep the AF-Ps and latest set of AF-S.

As for their current silence, as others have noted they're probably preparing their mirrorless launch while milking the D850 for all it's worth. The mirrorless launch will be much tougher task than releasing an iteration on a current camera since it'll have to be multiple releases all at the same time - one or more cameras, multiple lenses, adapters, etc., so it's kind of like having a year's worth of stuff all in one release, hence the current silence (I hope).

snakebunk

I don't think it matters much if Nikon sells old lenses or not. What matters is better customer communication, a super great mirrorless system open to third parties and a focused strategy free from failures like Nikon 1, Keymission and those compact cameras not even delivered.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

PB_PM said:

BabaGanoush said:

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception.

Apparently it does, because they aren’t dumping the stuff. Either Nikon doesn’t share your view, or something else is holding them, back. I’m sure Nikon is paying a good chunk of money to hold that inventory in warehouses, so I’m sure they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

They may not be holding on to it for legitimate business reasons. There's also things like stubbornness and pride. Companies routinely discard of old stock that isn't selling (and may never sell) so they can get it off the books and eliminate inventory costs. Apparently Nikon does not, if they were still carrying 30 year old NOS products as mentioned above.

Like others have said, I think Nikon's product lineup is broader than the declining market can support. And a Nikon mirrorless (while needed) will just make that worse. There will basically be three systems going by then. Seems like too many to me.

I think that there will be two systems, Mirrorless and FX. I think that CX and DX as we know it will be phased out/killed.

mhedges

WestEndFoto said:

mhedges said:

PB_PM said:

BabaGanoush said:

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception.

Apparently it does, because they aren’t dumping the stuff. Either Nikon doesn’t share your view, or something else is holding them, back. I’m sure Nikon is paying a good chunk of money to hold that inventory in warehouses, so I’m sure they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

They may not be holding on to it for legitimate business reasons. There's also things like stubbornness and pride. Companies routinely discard of old stock that isn't selling (and may never sell) so they can get it off the books and eliminate inventory costs. Apparently Nikon does not, if they were still carrying 30 year old NOS products as mentioned above.

Like others have said, I think Nikon's product lineup is broader than the declining market can support. And a Nikon mirrorless (while needed) will just make that worse. There will basically be three systems going by then. Seems like too many to me.

I think that there will be two systems, Mirrorless and FX. I think that CX and DX as we know it will be phased out/killed.

CX absolutely. DX - I doubt it. Unless there is an DX mirrorless. You need something at that $500-$600 kit price point. And let’s face it - for an awful lot of users DX is just fine - there’s no need to pay the premium for full frame.

WestEndFoto

mhedges said:

WestEndFoto said:

mhedges said:

PB_PM said:

BabaGanoush said:

"What else would you have Nikon do, dump possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock into a trash bin, just because they aren’t the newest thing? "

Hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to a company as big as Nikon, and yes, that is precisely what quite a number of global companies do to maintain the stature and reputation they have created for themselves in the public's perception.

Apparently it does, because they aren’t dumping the stuff. Either Nikon doesn’t share your view, or something else is holding them, back. I’m sure Nikon is paying a good chunk of money to hold that inventory in warehouses, so I’m sure they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

They may not be holding on to it for legitimate business reasons. There's also things like stubbornness and pride. Companies routinely discard of old stock that isn't selling (and may never sell) so they can get it off the books and eliminate inventory costs. Apparently Nikon does not, if they were still carrying 30 year old NOS products as mentioned above.

Like others have said, I think Nikon's product lineup is broader than the declining market can support. And a Nikon mirrorless (while needed) will just make that worse. There will basically be three systems going by then. Seems like too many to me.

I think that there will be two systems, Mirrorless and FX. I think that CX and DX as we know it will be phased out/killed.

CX absolutely. DX - I doubt it. Unless there is an DX mirrorless. You need something at that $500-$600 kit price point. And let’s face it - for an awful lot of users DX is just fine - there’s no need to pay the premium for full frame.

I predict that DX is mostly dead because the new mirrorless mount will be in that category. They will probably not kill it right away, but it will be a matter of time.

But I have no evidence except my own gut.

BabaGanoush

"Just because they're old [lenses] doesn't necessarily mean they're bad. They could still be good lenses, and if they work why not keep them. Lenses don't go out of date as quickly as camera bodies do."

No one is saying or implying that people who own old lenses that still work well should throw them away. Indeed, it's nice to know that if you buy a good Nikon lens, it will serve you well for many, many years. The issue is what Nikon should do about old lenses that are unsold and still in stock, but are no longer in production and may have been updated with the release of much improved versions of them. Those are the legacy products I think Nikon would be better off "retiring" and deleting from their consumer advertising materials. Nikon can easily maintain an on-line master database of all of its products, even those it no longer manufactures or sells, but its customer facing materials would benefit from triage to eliminate those products it no longer makes or sells.

Pistnbroke

DX wont die because you can get so many more sensors on a silicone wafer ...I do hate this 20MP sensor crap though.

mhedges

Pistnbroke said:

DX wont die because you can get so many more sensors on a silicone wafer ...I do hate this 20MP sensor crap though.

Meaning the reduction from 24 MP to 20? I agree it seems like a tough pill to swallow for an "upgrade". Not sure how much difference it really makes.

Hiker

The "collective heads of knuckle" at the "big 2" (Nikon and Canon) are basically the only camera makers NOT making any head way with a mirrorless camera. Yet Sony and others keep chugging along. Strange..imho.

[Deleted User]

I am usually not one to gripe but as i age i sense a duty to point to those things in companies that i would do differently. Why bother? Because i have been successful and see better options.

So regarding their lenses, they continue to amaze with terrific offerings - but then there are the duds, and perhaps worse, those that purport to be great and are clearly inferior.

Take the 80-400v1. What a piece of junk in every way. It should never have come to market, 1st nikon VR lens or not. Absolutely ridiculous.

The v2 with its super ed glass. We hoped for a great lens at 400, and again it clearly dissappointed. Take the new 180-400. The master of Versatility; but again at 400mm, not nearly as good as a prime and at a premium peice. What gives?

The 180-400 is again great up to 300, and at 400 is better than the 200-500 in the corners but in the center, not so much (steve perry's and ephotozine's assessments). $12k for a lens that at 400 is worse than its predecessor at about twice the price? Come on!

So why can Canon produce a 200-400 and 100-400 v2 which are clearly superior to nikon choices at the long end, we are talking zooms. Nikon prime teles are great 105 f1.4, 200f2, 300p, 400, 500, 600, 800. Yes zooms are more difficult to design and manufacture.

I own the nikon 200-400v1 and it is very good at 400 though af could be better. A winner. Why isnt the new lens at least equal at 400?

Maybe it's certain lens designers who are lacking, maybe nikon gets lazy when it comes to certain designs or perhaps they choose to cut corners to get a new product to market. Whatever the case, why the inconsistency? Why the marginal products? Why cant they improve aged designs more quickly?

It is almost infuriating if one cares about their success that they are not at the top of their game at all time. Yes i am on the outside looking in; however, they can and need to be so much better. The ceo should not let one product out the door that is not competitive but particularly if it is inferior. They must do better or else their fate will be sealed.

At times i look at them and say, why are you willing to accept poor performance at any level? This goes back to the d600 spots debacle. Steve Jobs would not tolerate such nonsense.
Why do they? They have clearly improved though since.

If reputation is everything, theirs is checkered.

I have owned many mf nikons over the years; old af lenses as well. All i can say is that their best afs lenses are truly superior to any Designs of the past. Hands down though the 55mm 2.8 micro may be one exception.

Pistnbroke

why not design the lens to be optimal at the long end if a little less so at the short.
Just ordered a 200-500 to replace the tamron 150-600 so we will see

retread

I just got a Sigma 120-300 for low light when the 150-600 falls short. In my active bag that makes Nikkor 2, third party 4. 2 Sigma, 1Tokina, and one Tamron.

PB_PM

flip said:

I am usually not one to gripe but as i age i sense a duty to point to those things in companies that i would do differently. Why bother? Because i have been successful and see better options.

So you've owned an operated a multinational company that has been in business for over 75 years that sells millions of cameras and lenses? If so, please tell Nikon how it's done. If not, comparing personal success to the success of the hundreds/thousands of people who made Nikon what it is today, is a little much. Not saying you aren't successful, but I'd hazard a guess that many of the people at Nikon have been very successful themselves.

I doubt there is a company on earth that doesn't make mistakes, no matter how successful they are, I sure cannot think of one. Does that mean that they are bad companies? Not really. Do we all agree that Nikon could do things better, from our viewpoint? Yes. Do most of us think Nikon missed the boat on some things (mirrorless), yes. Do they have some bad price to performance lenses? Yeah, a lot of them actually, but some worse than others.

Making a zoom lens, using modern optics, that is perfect from end to end that is impossible. Expecting a super-zoom to be as sharp as a prime is just expecting way too much. Why Nikon doesn't focus on making the long lenses better at the long end. Simple, they want you to buy the primes as well. If you think the marketing/sales department doesn't play a role, you are fooling yourself.

WestEndFoto

flip said:

So why can Canon produce a 200-400 and 100-400 v2 which are clearly superior to nikon choices at the long end, we are talking zooms. Nikon prime teles are great 105 f1.4, 200f2, 300p, 400, 500, 600, 800. Yes zooms are more difficult to design and manufacture.



I own the nikon 200-400v1 and it is very good at 400 though af could be better. A winner. Why isnt the new lens at least equal at 400?

I am not sure there is enough evidence to draw this conclusion. One review is from a second or even third rate reviewer. The second is a solid reviewer, but only one sample on a "quick and dirty" review.

Hiker

PB_PM said:

flip said:

I am usually not one to gripe but as i age i sense a duty to point to those things in companies that i would do differently. Why bother? Because i have been successful and see better options.

So you've owned an operated a multinational company that has been in business for over 75 years that sells millions of cameras and lenses? If so, please tell Nikon how it's done. If not, comparing personal success to the success of the hundreds/thousands of people who made Nikon what it is today, is a little much. Not saying you aren't successful, but I'd hazard a guess that many of the people at Nikon have been very successful themselves.

I doubt there is a company on earth that doesn't make mistakes, no matter how successful they are, I sure cannot think of one. Does that mean that they are bad companies? Not really. Do we all agree that Nikon could do things better, from our viewpoint? Yes. Do most of us think Nikon missed the boat on some things (mirrorless), yes. Do they have some bad price to performance lenses? Yeah, a lot of them actually, but some worse than others.

Making a zoom lens, using modern optics, that is perfect from end to end that is impossible. Expecting a super-zoom to be as sharp as a prime is just expecting way too much. Why Nikon doesn't focus on making the long lenses better at the long end. Simple, they want you to buy the primes as well. If you think the marketing/sales department doesn't play a role, you are fooling yourself.

I work for a multi billion dollar company. They SAY they care, but the only thing big corporations care about is the bottom line. And also to satisfy their shareholders. THAT's what they care about. Nikon should be no different. Doesn't matter a hill of beans how long a company has been in business. Does Nikon make good equipment? Yes, the camera part is imho. Lenses? Sigma and Tamron are offering just as good if not better lenses at half the cost. Just my humble opinion.

Samko

“Sigma and Tamron are offering just as good if not better lenses at half the cost. Just my humble opinion.”

And how many good old sigma and tamrons are in mint condision today ?

Lets see in 10-20 year how good the today sigmas are.

Hiker

Samko said:

“Sigma and Tamron are offering just as good if not better lenses at half the cost. Just my humble opinion.”



And how many good old sigma and tamrons are in mint condision today ?



Lets see in 10-20 year how good the today sigmas are.

Maybe you should read some real world reviews and tests. Sigma and Tamron are surpassing Nikon in the quality to price factor and in a big way. That's the horrible truth. My Sigma 17-50 f2.8 is better than the Nikon 16-80. Why? Price to quality ratio. And my images are sharp. Why should I pay over $1,000 on a lens when I can have one at 3/4's the price that's just as good if not better. And then there is the Sigma 24-105 f4 That's been proven to be better than the Nikon 24-120. Just my 2 cents.