Quote Originally Posted by MissionMan View Post
....

I think the only complaint to date with Nikon (not sure about Canon) is that APSC isn't subject to the same offerings as full frame from an image quality perspective, so it's almost treated like the second class citizen. I.e. The Nikon APSC wide angle isn't close to the quality of the 14-24 which goes back to my original point. Nikon don't make pro glass for APSC. They expect people to "upgrade" to full frame and are still stuck in the whole APSC = amateur and Full frame = pro mindset when APSC is more than enough for most people. .....
For sure!

Nikon used to make APS-C pro glass back in the day, but have let it slide(basically since about 2008).
Up to '08 they did have the 17-55, 12-24 and 10.5 fish .. all pro level lenses

Note that in Nikon terms; gold rim on lenses = pro level glass. The lenses may or may not be of a pro level, but that's their system. (as Canon use red rim on their pro glass)
Anyhow, Nikon have committed to Fx then as the future for themselves and it makes sense for them to stick with that plan now(having taken that course).

So to begin a new line of lens for the Pro level APS-C shooter kind'a make no sense.
Their expected 'Pro' market is that they push the buyer to the Fx line anyhow.
So to Nikon, they expect the pro to buy Fx, and so use Fx lenses. This Pro can obviously shoot Dx too, and of course they'd expect that if they shoot Dx, then their Fx lenses do the job superbly!
But to create a selection of Dx only pro level lenses with the added burden of cost to the engineering dept and only have the (very) limited sales potential restricted to APS-C only .. what Fx shooter is going to buy a Dx only lens when they can get the Fx version!


Maybe Nikon do(or don't need a 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens(for both Fx and Dx) or an 18mm version .. or whatever. Sales of such a lens would be limited taking into account if Dx users really needed it.
In that sense, you'd be much better off going for a D610(or Df) and a 24mm f/1.8 or 28mm f/1.8 lens to achieve the same end goal(plus about 20% more lens heft).

ie. it makes no commercial sense(for them) to do such a lent type because a couple of ex Nikon users went to Fuji for that lens only!



Remember: we already commented on the fact that DSLR sales are dropping, but that drop in sales is coming off a seriously crazy spike in numbers.

Have a look at the recent post on Nikon rumours re DSLR vs mirrorless sales production figures.
in 2012 DLSR sales were in the 16million units range, and mirrorless were in the low 3's(millions).
4 years later, DSLR sales are in the high 8's and mirrorless numbers are still in the low 3's.

To me, that doesn't so much look like DSLR sales are leeching into mirror sales 'en masse' .. Yeah, there's going to be an amount of mirrorless sales that are created by folks updating to a newer camera, but going down the mirrorless route instead.

But there weren't 8 million new mirrorless sales in the previous 4 years over the 2012 low 3m units figure. In fact there was an ever so slight drop in unit numbers in 2016 compared to 2012 .. but by and large steady numbers.
Considering the elevated pace of new mirrorless models in the past 4 years since 2012(which usually leads to sales spikes and then lulls) you'd have expected mirrorless to have grown their sales figures.

Again, it appears that consumers are simply not buying new cameras with the regularity they once used too.
+ the point that average Joe and Jane/Mum and Dad have their barely used DSLR sitting in the cupboard since 2012 and they just don't need another one ever!

The question that manufacturers will be asking is, where is this new normal (ie. sales figures) going to settle at.
I can't imagine those that have switched to mirrorless now continually updating just to keep those sales numbers up.
So in all likelyhood, mirrorless sales will slowly start to dwindle(ie. market saturation point), and what will keep them buoyant will be new models).

So, if you were head honcho at Nikon, and the market was looking the way it currently is, would you commit vital resources to a new product line that is now way too late to the market(ie. a 'la keymission! )
Wise heads will stay settled, plan things out more meticulously and build on what they already have.

Some new lenses are still needed from Nikon(to replace old AF-D models).
a could of Micros, a couple more portrait types(eg. an AFS 135mm .. maybe at f/1.8, but f/2 would be fine). An update to the old 14mm f/2.8 could be something for them to ponder too?
Basically replace or cease production of the old AF-D lenses still on their list.

Any new lens catering to a market that has dwindled, or could still have yet to fully bottom doesn't make commercial sense.