Nikon and Canon Reverse Positions (Sep 15, 2014, 3:27 PM, by Thom Hogan)

[ruifo]

New article by Thom Hogan:
Nikon and Canon Reverse Positions (Sep 15, 2014, 3:27 PM)

Nikon and Canon Reverse Positions | byThom | Thom Hogan

Back in 2007, Nikon did something really remarkable: they made DX and FX versions of essentially the same camera (D300 and D3, respectively). Other than the crop sensor of one, they were near feature and UI identical, about as close as you could make them in two different sized bodies. Then they quickly added the D700 and we had a trio of choices where we chose only two things: sensor size and body size. Did the D3 stop selling because of the D300 and D700? No. Did the D300 stop selling because of the D700? No.

Today we’re seeing Canon pull off almost the exact same thing. The 7DII, 5DIII, and 1Dx form a trio of nearly identical cameras that differ mostly in sensor between the first two, and in body style and a bit of performance factor between the last two. I’ll go out on a limb and predict that this will be very successful for Canon in keeping their serious users engaged and buying Canon gear and that we’ll see a fair number of Nikon D300 holdouts realize that the position is reversed and buy into the Canon choices instead of waiting longer for Nikon.

I’m not going to reverse myself here; I’m consistent on my sense of what is correct in the high-DSLR line. Nikon made the right choice in 2007. Canon has now made the same right choice in 2014. Unfortunately, Nikon seems to have forgotten their choice.

Nikon basically now has a tough marketing problem on their hand, and while they never really quite were able to fully market the old speed/pixels sensor size combos well, now their marketing seems almost boilerplate, often with vague adjectives used to describe minimal and random differences. (“Powerful combination of pro-caliber features,” “new and refined features,” “easily tracks,” “enhanced accuracy,” “robust construction”.)

But more important, I think, is that Canon now appears to be winning the “reward the legacy users” war more than Nikon is. That, too, is another reversal.

Last decade I began a “modularity” campaign, but you know what? Nikon isn’t making non-modular modularity any more, so it’s unlikely they ever want to pursue modularity. What do I mean by that? Up through the D3 generation, we tended to have choices that were essentially “locked in factory” modularity. D2h or D2x, for example. Rather than buying one body and two sensor sets I had to buy two bodies with different sensors; essentially I was buying the same body twice instead of one body and two modules. My backup also wasn’t exactly the same as my primary, no matter what I was shooting that day (sports [D2h] versus landscape [D2x], for example). Still, I was essentially buying modularity in the sense that I was getting the same thing in different incarnations.

My problem now is that I have a fairly random set of choices in trying to decide a Nikon “kit” these days. Should my kit be D4s and D810? Or maybe D810 and D7100? Or maybe D810 and D750? None of these combos make as much sense as did the old D3s/D3x/D300/D700 days.

Somebody at Nikon thought that this new more random and mostly FX path was the right one. My problem is this: where does it take them? What’s the next FX camera going to be? (Best guess, 48-54mp something, which could be another random shot.) ​

 

[goodguy]

This article looks like the perfect scenario to start yet another long tedious and boring Nikon vs Canon debate/battle.

I am staying away from this, I am happy with what I have and for me that's all that matters.

 

[lambertpix]

I think it's also a perfect reminder of why the answer to "should I switch" is almost always, "no". Just wait a bit; whichever brand you're shooting with is going to come out with a new body you like. Granted, it can be painful to wait, but on the other hand, switching every time you see something shiny gets mighty expensive.

 

[runnah]

I am staying away from this, I am happy with what I have and for me that's all that matters.

How exceptionally mature. I was going to say that Thom is a giant gas bag that should stop trying to run a giant company from his arm chair and actually go out and enjoy taking photos rather than sitting around fondling gear and analyzing spec sheets, but I realized that I should take the same path as you. So i will bite my tongue and say nothing.

 

[goodguy]

I think it's also a perfect reminder of why the answer to "should I switch" is almost always, "no". Just wait a bit; whichever brand you're shooting with is going to come out with a new body you like. Granted, it can be painful to wait, but on the other hand, switching every time you see something shiny gets mighty expensive.

We all agree that todays cameras are all good, even base model camera can produce excellent photos so the real difference between Canon and Nikon isn't that huge, what we need to concentrate at is our skills, improving them and keep getting better and better, heck gear is important but we need to tone down the differences and remember its all about the person behind the camera that REALLY makes the difference!!!

 

[goodguy]

How exceptionally mature. I was going to say that Thom is a giant gas bag that should stop trying to run a giant company from his arm chair and actually go out and enjoy taking photos rather than sitting around fondling gear and analyzing spec sheets, but I realized that I should take the same path as you. So i will bite my tongue and say nothing.

Good choice!

 

[JacaRanda]

I think it's cool to note trends. It is a little baffling to see how many don't seem to be happy with what they have or what the camera makers are offering (for a given price).

You would think that the majority of people were out there making money, not just sharing on Flickr.

I do enjoy upgrading my cell phones, but there are enough out there that have the features I want and don't need to keep me content. Never am I frustrated when there are plenty of choices and I am not forced to buy any of it.

 

[JacaRanda]

We all agree that todays cameras are all good, even base model camera can produce excellent photos so the real difference between Canon and Nikon isn't that huge, what we need to concentrate at is our skills, improving them and keep getting better and better, heck gear is important but we need to tone down the differences and remember its all about the person behind the camera that REALLY makes the difference!!!

Well said, but not the nature of the beast.

 

[robbins.photo]

This article looks like the perfect scenario to start yet another long tedious and boring Nikon vs Canon debate/battle.

I am staying away from this, I am happy with what I have and for me that's all that matters.

Hey no worries, we're going to be too busy on the hater bus eating smores anyway.. rotfl.

I see this one a lot actually from a lot of camera aficionados, because whatever the latest release that just came out doesn't have this or doesn't have that it's horrible and camera company X must just be completely off their rocker, blah blah blah..

Well camera company X has a lot of very highly paid people who have access to a lot of privileged information that we never get to see and they for whatever reason decided that this was the best route to go - based on that.

Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong - but random internet griping is not likely to change their marketing strategy much, sales data will. Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV.

 

[Derrel]

How exceptionally mature. I was going to say that Thom is a giant gas bag that should stop trying to run a giant company from his arm chair>snip.

Yeah, I mostly agree with that sentiment. He is constantly spouting off advice, but as we see from his last sentence, he has literally nothing but a guess as to what Nikon will do next.

A main thought springs to mind. Thom talks about "Nikon's marketing" all the time, pretty much non-stop in that gasbag way that indicates that HE knows best how to run a big corporation, right down to the kind of toilet paper in the cans .Buuuuut, like so many guys in their late 50's and 60's, he seems utterly clueless that NIKON's corporate marketing is not what sells cameras and lenses. He's stuck in a 1970's-think pattern. Nobody gives a chit what "Nikon's marketing" says about their products! The people buying Nikon d-slrs and Nikon lenses turn to the opinion leaders on the internet, and in the magazines, to get the straight scoop on products.

Thom says Nikon's corporate marketing uses vague adjectives. Well--no chit, Thom! General, broad, positive attributes are all they need. It's no longer 1977, dude. Nor is it 1987, nor 1997. There are basically two d-slr makers, with Sony and its hobby business, being ignored like that one drunk guy passed out in the corner. There is no longer much real "pull", and no "push" from company marketing in camera advertisements. People have other ways of evaluating products. This is the internet age. What dPreview says about a camera is what counts. If a camera, or any product these days is good, or bad, marketing in the internet age is grassroots, and viral, rendering basically meaningless the ads Nikon or Canon runs. The ads just tell us what products there are: people now can do real research on-line and find out the truth about products. Again....it ain't 1977 any longer.

And he talks about people's kit, offering up $10,000 two-camera setups as options. KInd of like multi-millionaires discussing the merits of the yacht berths in Sydney Harbour, when the majority of people are talking about how they can afford gas for the boat and the season's launch fees at the lake. This is the issue when high-end people, insulated from the majority of buyers, start over-armchairing things and thinking in ways they learned about marketing years ago. It's utterly ignoring the realities of how decisions are made in the internet era, and utterly ignoring the rise and importance of OUTSIDE influencers. Nikon's marketing doesn't mean chit to me. Or to hundreds of thousands of other Nikon shooters. dPreview, DxO Mark, Pop Photo, British Journal of Photography, forum friends, close friends, those are the people who "sell" modern higher end gear, not marketing "adjectives".

 

[Derrel]

He needs to get and read the Cluetrain Manifesto, an important book that discusses the way business as usual, what he is advocating, is dead, and has been dead since the rise of the 'net. He's applying the old "power of paid marketing" and the 'power of advertising' ideas of the 1960's to the buying habits of mostly well-educated, middle- and upper-middle class buyers of luxury items--in the internet era.

The Cluetrain Manifesto — Entire Text Index Page

This is the essential outline of the entire book, which I bought the month it came out.
the cluetrain manifesto - 95 theses

 

[astroNikon]

I love my cameras
They're the best ones that I own and use.

 

[pgriz]

He needs to get and read the Cluetrain Manifesto, an important book that discusses the way business as usual, what he is advocating, is dead, and has been dead since the rise of the 'net. He's applying the old "power of paid marketing" and the 'power of advertising' ideas of the 1960's to the buying habits of mostly well-educated, middle- and upper-middle class buyers of luxury items--in the internet era.

The Cluetrain Manifesto — Entire Text Index Page

Derrel, thanks for that link. There's lots of there that resonates with my experience. Going to have to spend some "free" time this evening reading.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, the book was profiled 10 years ago on Salon.com or wired, and so I bought it. It fundamentally changed my ideas about advertising and marketing. Like thesis #11: People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about adding value to commoditized products.

That was my point, exactly. Nikon's corporate advertising has a very,very,verrrrrry minimal impact. Thom, faulting Nikon's corporate advertising for vague, broad positive adjectives describing their products IGNORES the realities: a two-page $200,000 campaign in Popular Photography magazine has one hell of a lot less sway than the 25-page review online at dPreview. A good review on dPreview almost guarantees success for any photo product. Thom seems to cling to some seriously outdated ideas regarding the role of corporate, paid-for, advertising and marketing in the 21st century

 

[runnah]

Thom is misguided in his marketing approach. Where both big dogs need to spend their efforts is not in selling to those who already have dslrs but to those who think cell phones are good enough.

But again, I run marketing for a construction company, not a camera company.