Nikon is dying?

Jim C. · Nov 23, 2019

I have read several articles in financial news pieces that Nikon is dying. How can this possibly be true. Nikon has been around a long time and is recognized as a leader in photography. The quality is excellent and the camera and lens choices are amazing. The articles seem to be based on the mirrorless cameras not selling as predicted and the quality of lens in cell phones.
I witnessed the fall of Minolta and as I shot Minolta it bothered me. I shot Minolta film cameras and even purchased a Minolta/Konica digital. (somewhat disappointing).
I think all photography will adjust to the fact that cell phones are the point and shoot cameras of the present and future and a lot of entry level cameras are going away. I think or hope that the serious photographer will continue to use a quality camera. But for carry around picture taking I use my cell phone.

Soocom1 · Nov 23, 2019

As with anything, there is a time for all things.

Nikon will eventually disappear. When? Who knows.

The market analysis is something I don't pay much attention to because they are almost always wrong.

Minolta was in pretty bad shape in the mid 2000's after two lawsuits and the slow upstart with digital. Plus the 5 and 7D models were not what many wanted and lacked substantial umph. The only real selling point was an IBIS.

Consider that when the 7D came out it was only a 6Mp sensor and Nikon already had a 14 in the FF category.
Additionally Minolta had to combine with a competitor (Konica) in order to survive. Minolta not only made cameras, they also made imaging equipment and enterprise printers.

Right now, unless there is a meteor strike on Tokyo, I don't see it happening.

cgw · Nov 23, 2019

I have read several articles in financial news pieces that Nikon is dying.

Where, exactly?

vintagesnaps · Nov 23, 2019

There's at least one rumor going around that started with someone speculating on a message board. Nothing to it. Then these things go viral...

Overread · Nov 23, 2019

Considering Nikon is beating canon sensor wise at present I'd have thought Nikon was in a very good spot right now.

That said ALL the camera companies are feeling some pinch as whilst the camera market is still very profitable the insane growth we saw as digital took over is easing off. That idealistic "oh more profits every year" economist talk never lasts forever. What you'll see is companies start to rein in profits and such because the market will contract. Sometimes new tricks like mirrorless can add some extra life; however with mobile phones eating up the casual end of the market and with pro end gear being longer term investments for many customers (many people skip a generation in updating their DSLR and for lenses the top end ones might be used until they break or are broken rather than replaced when a new edition is released).

So you'll see loads of "doom and gloom" articles which, for those looking for shares with a high return on investment, are probably accurate to read. However there's still a lot of life left in the companies. Heck I'd personally rather like it if the company level stock market vanished as I feel its to blame for a lot of panic choices companies make and for a shift in their views from customer orientated to shareholder orientated but that's possibly for another chat.

jcdeboever · Nov 23, 2019

I seen the finacial report and its not good. The bulk of their sales are from consumer level cameras which has declined steadily because of smart phones. Their professional level cameras are not a large portion but has remained somewhat steady. People just don't want to lug around camera gear in general IMO. They are late into the mirrorless game and to compound poor sales, they can't drive some of the excellent af-d lenses. My guess is they will buy back some stock, revamp the lineup of mirrorless, and focus on other segments which priduce profit. Doubt they will go away but change their approach.

Nikon | Investor Relations | Financial Results and Presentation Materials

Derrel · Nov 23, 2019

I thought Canon camera had year-over-year profits down 20% from last year. Is Canon camera dying?

Jeff15 · Nov 23, 2019

Both Nikon and Canon although making very good cameras in the past are really falling behind the times at the moment.

Overread · Nov 23, 2019

I can see them losing the casual consumer war somewhat and reducing their hold their. The mobile phone camera is going to replace most small compacts if it hasn't already meanwhile mirrorless and "bridge" type cameras might well get carved up between them and other giants like Sony. There's far more competition there, but it also moves faster and fads come and go very quickly. DSLR wise I think both will remain top of the market for a long while yet - whilst they are slower products to sell the customerbase is typically more brand loyal once invested into a brand. Furthermore both Canon and Nikon have very extensive own brand ranges of lenses as well as extensive 3rd party support.

Others might try and push in, but it will take longer for the brand loyalty to kick and for them to get complete lens ranges; esp of the bigger and more expensive kit.

pocketshaver · Nov 23, 2019

The whole market for electronics is nuts.

It just takes a restructure of what is actually made.

Look at Nikon, the folks in charge of production still think that cell phones only have 3 megapixel cameras in them. In the Coolpix compact line of 17 cameras, 9 of them are directly competing with cell phone cameras, and most of them LOSE against the last 3 generations of Samsung and Iphone cameras. And these 9 are also in direct competition with their action camera lineup.

The other Coolpix cameras are only besting cellphones in terms of lens diameter and optical zoom. Everything else is a draw for the consumer standpoint.

What they need to do is the following.

Focus on lowering costs for the new z line, the FX line, and reorganize the DX lineup.

Focus on the D500. Its got a lot going for it.

Even out the cameras in the enthusiast, advanced entry, and entry level lines. Its just really really nuts when the bare bottom 3500/3400 share the same spot in the universe as the Coolpix line, but have the addition of replaceable lenses.

56/55/5300 . Even the technology out among them and start lowering the prices on the older ones. Shouldn't have the latest top of the line camera being cheaper MSRP then the 2 generation old one. Implied value is major with expensive purchases.

75/7200. Same thing on even out technology between them, reduce prices on the old one. Or turn the old one into the "high end" of the next lower category.

If they focused on evening out the image sensor power in ALL of their cameras it would be nice. The bottom end 3500 shouldn't have a 24 megapixel sensor while the top of the line cameras costing 2-3 times as much only have a 20 megapixel sensor.

Yes software and processing aside, that does create an issue with consumers. Newer generations should be superior. Its why cell phone cameras have knocked the crap out of regular DSLRs. Hey, anyone remember that the first 10 years of digital cameras sucked image wise to 1990s point and shoot 35mm cameras.

Nwcid · Nov 23, 2019

If you have time for videos, the first 20 minutes of this is a good one to watch. It deals with this topic, however it was more focused on Olympus. Agree or disagree, that is fine, but is another perspective that this this topic.

Dave442 · Nov 23, 2019

I bought my first digital camera for the express purpose of being able to share images by e-mail with family in other countries. Today you are much better off using your phone to take pictures for most social sharing of images.

I bet if I go ask my friends that jumped into a DSLR setup five or ten years ago I would find that 50% of them have their camera sitting on a shelf and the other 50% bought some type of mirrorless - but 100% are taking more pictures with their phone than with their camera.

No surprise to see camera companies with a drop in sales.

pocketshaver · Nov 23, 2019

Look at sony, they sell camera components to other camera companies, and even to cell phone companies. They've actually stretched market share by doing so.

Other companies are trying to have a finger in each part of the camera pie. While that looks ok on paper, you just over extend yourself.

If sony went to ONE mirrorless and one DSLR and built components for other companies, and made their little "compact" cameras theyd stay fine.

If canon and Nikon thinned their camera offerings to something like pentax has done, they would truly start saving money.

If Fujifilm built an actual website that showed their product, and sold it online from their own store they would increase sales. Why? Their website was created by rube Goldberg if your trying to find information on what they offer. And they have to many official dealers that DONT carry their cameras in store.

Leica simply needs to simplify their offerings. Sure like Nikon and sony they have other product divisions to use to keep overall company health and profit, but having so many different camera lines is a nightmare for the consumer. Some are still just a difference in how a dial is painted...

Voightlander CAN make a comeback if they kept to film cameras. There IS no competition in film cameras today. Nikon has the budget 600$ FM10, The F6 for 2K$. Leica hits 3000$ for a drool worthy 35mm camera.
If they come back with one of their late model 35mm's and price it between the Nikon D3400 and the Nikon FM10 they would see good market.

Overread · Nov 24, 2019

Honestly I think part of Leica's marketing is that they realise many people buy their cameras because they are a Leica and almost nothing else. So having a wide range appeals to camera collectors as a market. It's probably something only Leica can do because they've built that quality and collecting market atmosphere around their brand. Even secondhand film Leicas still sell for a decent value whilst many other brands are lumped into boxes and still take a while to sell.

I agree that film still has a viable market and will likely continue to do so. It probably needs a bit more time for the glut of decent film cameras to steadily dwindle off the market and also for a company to be big enough to hit the national markets; but not so big that they need super high sales volume.

Derrel · Nov 24, 2019

I do not think there is much Market for a film camera, since film sales are now less than 1% of what they used to be. Film is a very small niche market, and film cameras even smaller, since film is a consumable and film cameras are very durable goods. I have a working camera that was made in 1938, meaning it has lasted 81 years. The camera has outlived basically a whole generation of people. There are Untold millions of 35 mm cameras and probably tens of Millions of 120 roll film models available for purchase on the used Market, often for as little as $10 to $100 for common examples such as the Argus C3 or the Pentax K1000 or the Nikon F, etc.. A quick look through KEH shows hundreds of working 35 mm film cameras, which represent a tremendous obstacle to entering the market with a new model. I do not think that most people are interested in film shooting with a new camera when many highly desirable cameras are available on the used Market. If I were to buy a "new" 35 millimeter film camera to replace one of the six I already own, it would most likely look for a good clean used Leica M3 made sometime between 1953 and 1957. It is highly unlikely that any camera of new design could have higher appeal than what I consider to be one of the nicest film cameras ever made.