Nikon Rudderless?

[robbins.photo]

I'm pretty sure that 200-500 5.6 has been calling my name. But I'm not allowed to buy gear anymore thanks to TPF

Merely suggested that if you really want to improve your photographs I'd start by working with what you have and getting to know it intimately, instead of switching cameras/lenses so much. But the choice is ultimately yours, your money, spend it however you want.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I think the issue he's bringing up here (or what I consider relevant about his points) is that Nikon is pushing into a contracting, and ever crowded, market. Low end consumer camera sales peaked years ago and have been on a downward spiral ever since. How much Nikon actually rely on those sales I don't know though, as I really don't care enough to research it. If they really are heavily reliant on low end sales, well, that sucks for them. At least Canon have office and medical equipment to fall back on.

Well I'd trust the guys with the marketing data a lot more than the guys without it for making those kinds of decisions.

I'm sure they've looked at not just the total sales figures on the"low end consumer cameras" but also at things like, how many of the folks that we sold one of these entry level models too eventually came back and upgraded to something more advanced?

It's data we don't have, can't really analyze properly and can only guess about anecdotally. Keep in mind too that markets change. Nikon still hauls in billions in revenue, I think they did something like 586 billion yen last year. Granted I have no idea how much that is in real money but I'm guessing it's a lot.

So yes, that might be down from a few years ago, but you have to be doing something right if your making those kinds of numbers. So yes, the market will change. It will fluctuate. But to base the notion that Nikon is doomed because one guy didn't like the update they did from the D3300 to the D3400? Ya, not buying into it.

Nikon has to look at things from a much different perspective than some self proclaimed internet expert. Ok, folks, no offense meant to Thom here.. he's a great photographer. But, I'm a pretty damn good driver. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to become the CEO of General Motors or make marketing decisions for them.

So, from Nikon's point of view - you can't really do a huge upgrade to the D3400 without taking sales away from the D5500. It's not just about total sales of the D3400, it's about inventory levels, etc. A lot more goes into those decisions than just looking at it from a how many of these can we sell perspective. They also need to balance the cost of each unit with a prospective price point. They also consider things like, what do people buying an entry level camera really want the most, and what do they consider more optional... nice to have but not necessarily a must?

So yes, a lot more goes into this stuff than most people realize. So with all do respect to Thom, lets face it.. he was never the target audience for the D3400 to begin with. He shouldn't be shocked that he would be so disappointed in it.

I'm familiar with what goes into corporate decisions regarding production, inventory, etc. However, I know better than to rely on the corporate brass to know what is best. There is a long list of failed corporations that show otherwise. Of course, as I said before, I don't really care enough about Nikon to look into their corporate reports and see if they really are hurting or not. As Thom Hogan himself pointed out, he's been decrying Nikons corporate decisions for almost 20yrs. At some point it just becomes a broken record.

 

[nerwin]

I'm pretty sure that 200-500 5.6 has been calling my name. But I'm not allowed to buy gear anymore thanks to TPF

Merely suggested that if you really want to improve your photographs I'd start by working with what you have and getting to know it intimately, instead of switching cameras/lenses so much. But the choice is ultimately yours, your money, spend it however you want.

I know, I was just trying to be funny. haha

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm familiar with what goes into corporate decisions regarding production, inventory, etc. However, I know better than to rely on the corporate brass to know what is best. There is a long list of failed corporations that show otherwise. Of course, as I said before, I don't really care enough about Nikon to look into their corporate reports and see if they really are hurting or not. As Thom Hogan himself pointed out, he's been decrying Nikons corporate decisions for almost 20yrs. At some point it just becomes a broken record.

Well in this case the corporate brass seems to be doing as well as the other folks who make a similar product. If their sales had dropped say twice what Canon's had, then yes I can see maybe some validity to the points Thom wishes to make. As it is, I don't.

I think the most telling point in all of this was Thom mentioning that Canon was on the right track with the 5D MKIV - well of course they are from his point of view. It's the sort of camera a guy like him would buy and use.

A D3400? Eh.. not so much. So no, I doubt anything they could have done with this upgrade would have made him happy unless they made it a full frame camera that could shoot 8 FPS, etc, etc..

 

[cgw]

I think the issue he's bringing up here (or what I consider relevant about his points) is that Nikon is pushing into a contracting, and ever crowded, market. Low end consumer camera sales peaked years ago and have been on a downward spiral ever since. How much Nikon actually rely on those sales I don't know though, as I really don't care enough to research it. If they really are heavily reliant on low end sales, well, that sucks for them. At least Canon have office and medical equipment to fall back on.

Well I'd trust the guys with the marketing data a lot more than the guys without it for making those kinds of decisions.

I'm sure they've looked at not just the total sales figures on the"low end consumer cameras" but also at things like, how many of the folks that we sold one of these entry level models too eventually came back and upgraded to something more advanced?

It's data we don't have, can't really analyze properly and can only guess about anecdotally. Keep in mind too that markets change. Nikon still hauls in billions in revenue, I think they did something like 586 billion yen last year. Granted I have no idea how much that is in real money but I'm guessing it's a lot.

So yes, that might be down from a few years ago, but you have to be doing something right if your making those kinds of numbers. So yes, the market will change. It will fluctuate. But to base the notion that Nikon is doomed because one guy didn't like the update they did from the D3300 to the D3400? Ya, not buying into it.

Nikon has to look at things from a much different perspective than some self proclaimed internet expert. Ok, folks, no offense meant to Thom here.. he's a great photographer. But, I'm a pretty damn good driver. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to become the CEO of General Motors or make marketing decisions for them.

So, from Nikon's point of view - you can't really do a huge upgrade to the D3400 without taking sales away from the D5500. It's not just about total sales of the D3400, it's about inventory levels, etc. A lot more goes into those decisions than just looking at it from a how many of these can we sell perspective. They also need to balance the cost of each unit with a prospective price point. They also consider things like, what do people buying an entry level camera really want the most, and what do they consider more optional... nice to have but not necessarily a must?

So yes, a lot more goes into this stuff than most people realize. So with all do respect to Thom, lets face it.. he was never the target audience for the D3400 to begin with. He shouldn't be shocked that he would be so disappointed in it.

Having said very little at great length, all you need to read are Nikon's quarterlies and the CIPA numbers. That Hogan bases his unpopular, unwelcome analysis on such data--and not magical thinking--seems to be a real irritant hereabouts. Anti-Nikon?Please...

 

[robbins.photo]

I think the issue he's bringing up here (or what I consider relevant about his points) is that Nikon is pushing into a contracting, and ever crowded, market. Low end consumer camera sales peaked years ago and have been on a downward spiral ever since. How much Nikon actually rely on those sales I don't know though, as I really don't care enough to research it. If they really are heavily reliant on low end sales, well, that sucks for them. At least Canon have office and medical equipment to fall back on.

Well I'd trust the guys with the marketing data a lot more than the guys without it for making those kinds of decisions.

I'm sure they've looked at not just the total sales figures on the"low end consumer cameras" but also at things like, how many of the folks that we sold one of these entry level models too eventually came back and upgraded to something more advanced?

It's data we don't have, can't really analyze properly and can only guess about anecdotally. Keep in mind too that markets change. Nikon still hauls in billions in revenue, I think they did something like 586 billion yen last year. Granted I have no idea how much that is in real money but I'm guessing it's a lot.

So yes, that might be down from a few years ago, but you have to be doing something right if your making those kinds of numbers. So yes, the market will change. It will fluctuate. But to base the notion that Nikon is doomed because one guy didn't like the update they did from the D3300 to the D3400? Ya, not buying into it.

Nikon has to look at things from a much different perspective than some self proclaimed internet expert. Ok, folks, no offense meant to Thom here.. he's a great photographer. But, I'm a pretty damn good driver. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to become the CEO of General Motors or make marketing decisions for them.

So, from Nikon's point of view - you can't really do a huge upgrade to the D3400 without taking sales away from the D5500. It's not just about total sales of the D3400, it's about inventory levels, etc. A lot more goes into those decisions than just looking at it from a how many of these can we sell perspective. They also need to balance the cost of each unit with a prospective price point. They also consider things like, what do people buying an entry level camera really want the most, and what do they consider more optional... nice to have but not necessarily a must?

So yes, a lot more goes into this stuff than most people realize. So with all do respect to Thom, lets face it.. he was never the target audience for the D3400 to begin with. He shouldn't be shocked that he would be so disappointed in it.

Having said very little at great length, all you need to read are Nikon's quarterlies and the CIPA numbers. That Hogan bases his unpopular, unwelcome analysis on such data--and not magical thinking--seems to be a real irritant hereabouts. Anti-Nikon?Please...

I said a great deal that was instantly discounted because of a clear bias against Nikon.

Since neither you our Thom is currently in charge of a company that makes billions every year I will put my money on the guys that do, as opposed to listening to a couple of self proclaimed experts with zero experience and a very incomplete picture based on extremely limited information.

I'm just funny that way I guess.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

I'm pretty sure that 200-500 5.6 has been calling my name. But I'm not allowed to buy gear anymore thanks to TPF

If it makes you feel any better, you can buy gear for us?
I really need that Nikon 200-500 too
I'll forward my shipping address, as I'm sure most everyone else on TPF will do shortly ...

 

[astroNikon]

I think the issue he's bringing up here (or what I consider relevant about his points) is that Nikon is pushing into a contracting, and ever crowded, market. Low end consumer camera sales peaked years ago and have been on a downward spiral ever since. How much Nikon actually rely on those sales I don't know though, as I really don't care enough to research it. If they really are heavily reliant on low end sales, well, that sucks for them. At least Canon have office and medical equipment to fall back on.

Well I'd trust the guys with the marketing data a lot more than the guys without it for making those kinds of decisions.

I'm sure they've looked at not just the total sales figures on the"low end consumer cameras" but also at things like, how many of the folks that we sold one of these entry level models too eventually came back and upgraded to something more advanced?

It's data we don't have, can't really analyze properly and can only guess about anecdotally. Keep in mind too that markets change. Nikon still hauls in billions in revenue, I think they did something like 586 billion yen last year. Granted I have no idea how much that is in real money but I'm guessing it's a lot.

So yes, that might be down from a few years ago, but you have to be doing something right if your making those kinds of numbers. So yes, the market will change. It will fluctuate. But to base the notion that Nikon is doomed because one guy didn't like the update they did from the D3300 to the D3400? Ya, not buying into it.

Nikon has to look at things from a much different perspective than some self proclaimed internet expert. Ok, folks, no offense meant to Thom here.. he's a great photographer. But, I'm a pretty damn good driver. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to become the CEO of General Motors or make marketing decisions for them.

So, from Nikon's point of view - you can't really do a huge upgrade to the D3400 without taking sales away from the D5500. It's not just about total sales of the D3400, it's about inventory levels, etc. A lot more goes into those decisions than just looking at it from a how many of these can we sell perspective. They also need to balance the cost of each unit with a prospective price point. They also consider things like, what do people buying an entry level camera really want the most, and what do they consider more optional... nice to have but not necessarily a must?

So yes, a lot more goes into this stuff than most people realize. So with all do respect to Thom, lets face it.. he was never the target audience for the D3400 to begin with. He shouldn't be shocked that he would be so disappointed in it.

Having said very little at great length, all you need to read are Nikon's quarterlies and the CIPA numbers. That Hogan bases his unpopular, unwelcome analysis on such data--and not magical thinking--seems to be a real irritant hereabouts. Anti-Nikon?Please...

I said a great deal that was instantly discounted because of a clear bias against Nikon.

Since neither you our Thom is currently in charge of a company that makes billions every year I will put my money on the guys that do, as opposed to listening to a couple of self proclaimed experts with zero experience and a very incomplete picture based on extremely limited information.

I'm just funny that way I guess.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

It is very evident that Thom compares all his reviews to the top end cameras.
With that, it's going to be impossible to compare a low budget consumer camera to a top end spec camera and lens. Everything will disappoint except for the top end equipment.

So, one can guess how his review is going to be with anything that is not top end.

What Thom is missing, is he needs to analyze the R&D costs associated with adding new features. Just because a new feature is added don't just think that they "shoved" it into an empty spot in the camera body. There's usually a lot of design changes, new chip sets, motherboards, etc. Look at tear downs of camera bodies and compare one model to the next. Better features require more space. a Larger AF module require more space. Add a internal focusing motor .. more space. Larger motherboard to accomodate newer and better chip sets ... more space. This requires a redesign of the body making it every so slightly larger, or new material to make it thinner. more compact chipsets/boards etc. So much more goes into a new camera then just a new model number., though we wonder sometimes.

Thom is an end user and photographer, not a business/ engineering analyst.

All it needs is for him to look at a break down of the Canon 1dx and SL1 .. shouldn't they be the same size, and why not ??

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm pretty sure that 200-500 5.6 has been calling my name. But I'm not allowed to buy gear anymore thanks to TPF

If it makes you feel any better, you can buy gear for us?
I really need that Nikon 200-500 too
I'll forward my shipping address, as I'm sure most everyone else on TPF will do shortly ...

Looked at the Nikkor 200-500 myself, the constant 5.6 was appealing, so were samples shot wide open. Not so sure about the zoom ring though, 160 degree throw seems like a real hassle to deal with when trying to zoom in and out in the field. So leaning towards the Tamron G2 at the moment.

 

[astroNikon]

I'm pretty sure that 200-500 5.6 has been calling my name. But I'm not allowed to buy gear anymore thanks to TPF

If it makes you feel any better, you can buy gear for us?
I really need that Nikon 200-500 too
I'll forward my shipping address, as I'm sure most everyone else on TPF will do shortly ...

Looked at the Nikkor 200-500 myself, the constant 5.6 was appealing, so were samples shot wide open. Not so sure about the zoom ring though, 160 degree throw seems like a real hassle to deal with when trying to zoom in and out in the field. So leaning towards the Tamron G2 at the moment.

well if Nerwin is buying, just get both of them!!

 

[robbins.photo]

It is very evident that Thom compares all his reviews to the top end cameras.
With that, it's going to be impossible to compare a low budget consumer camera to a top end spec camera and lens. Everything will disappoint except for the top end equipment.

So, one can guess how his review is going to be with anything that is not top end.

What Thom is missing, is he needs to analyze the R&D costs associated with adding new features. Just because a new feature is added don't just think that they "shoved" it into an empty spot in the camera body. There's usually a lot of design changes, new chip sets, motherboards, etc. Look at tear downs of camera bodies and compare one model to the next. Better features require more space. a Larger AF module require more space. Add a internal focusing motor .. more space. Larger motherboard to accomodate newer and better chip sets ... more space. This requires a redesign of the body making it every so slightly larger, or new material to make it thinner. more compact chipsets/boards etc. So much more goes into a new camera then just a new model number., though we wonder sometimes.

Thom is an end user and photographer, not a business/ engineering analyst.

All it needs is for him to look at a break down of the Canon 1dx and SL1 .. shouldn't they be the same size, and why not ??

Sad thing is whenever Nikon release anything but a top of the line camera in like the D810/D500/D5 range, Thom is apparently going to be pissing and moaning about what a waste of time it was to work on anything else.

I understand, those are the cameras he's interested in and wants. But from a business perspective the D3400 makes good financial sense for Nikon, because that's what most people buy.

 

[astroNikon]

It is very evident that Thom compares all his reviews to the top end cameras.
With that, it's going to be impossible to compare a low budget consumer camera to a top end spec camera and lens. Everything will disappoint except for the top end equipment.

So, one can guess how his review is going to be with anything that is not top end.

What Thom is missing, is he needs to analyze the R&D costs associated with adding new features. Just because a new feature is added don't just think that they "shoved" it into an empty spot in the camera body. There's usually a lot of design changes, new chip sets, motherboards, etc. Look at tear downs of camera bodies and compare one model to the next. Better features require more space. a Larger AF module require more space. Add a internal focusing motor .. more space. Larger motherboard to accomodate newer and better chip sets ... more space. This requires a redesign of the body making it every so slightly larger, or new material to make it thinner. more compact chipsets/boards etc. So much more goes into a new camera then just a new model number., though we wonder sometimes.

Thom is an end user and photographer, not a business/ engineering analyst.

All it needs is for him to look at a break down of the Canon 1dx and SL1 .. shouldn't they be the same size, and why not ??

Sad thing is whenever Nikon release anything but a top of the line camera in like the D810/D500/D5 range, Thom is apparently going to be pissing and moaning about what a waste of time it was to work on anything else.

I understand, those are the cameras he's interested in and wants. But from a business perspective the D3400 makes good financial sense for Nikon, because that's what most people buy.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but this certainly is my perception of the sales model based on demand.
==> How Do FX and DX Sales Compare? | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

Also with lenses, if most are d3x00 and d5x00 how many do you think are satisfied with the kit lenses. How many people with a d3x00 or d5x00 have a 70-200/2.8 ? I think generally (wihtout any analytical data) that only higher end camera buyers buy higher end lenses. So making a 18-55/1.8 lens that costs 3-4x the body would be ridiculous as if demand was low, and production costs high, you would have an even higher cost lens.

Does Canon have a 70-200/2.8 APS-C only lens?
what's the Cost/Benefit of making one for FF *and* APS-C, versus just one lens for both platforms ?

Thom clearly doesn't understand business economics.

 

[Braineack]

Sad thing is whenever Nikon release anything but a top of the line camera in like the D500/D5 range, Thom is apparently going to be pissing and moaning about what a waste of time it was to work on anything else.

The D500 and D5 are amazing-- recently released--bodies with specs unmatched and technology that WILL trickle down, yet he's still pissing and moaning.


What exactly is better about IV over the III? slightly more MP, newer processor, okay cool...but that's typical. Similar AF module, similar Burst rate, similar DR, similar ISO, same old tired storage system.

Oh neato it can now shoot 4K video. oh cool touchscreen. oh tubular a new trendy cell-phonesque RAW mode so you can fake Bokeh.

It's just the same but upgraded...

 

[chuasam]

What doesn't struggle in Canada?

Freedom, Justin Trudeau, black people.

 

[chuasam]

The author seems to be one of those people that can only see the tree and even though they're standing in the middle of it can fathom the concept of a forest. One camera offering doesn't kill a company or they'd all be gone by now since they've all screwed up at some point.

Look at Target, they built ton of stores and shut them all down in a couple years, lost all that money.

Target f*%$ed themselves when they jacked all the Canadian prices 2.5 times the US ones. It was still cheaper to cross the border, shop in a US Target than to shop in a Canadian one.
Nothing to do with the market. Just F#*ktarded people thinking we wouldn't notice the price difference.

They're apparently struggling in Canada: firing reps, parts and inventory shortages, pissed-off dealers.

Can't find any news on this and normally our news loves to report on the loss of jobs.

No it's true. But that's only the loss of like half a dozen jobs or so.