$1 billion wiped of the value of Nikon in a day following their announcement
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 47
$1 billion wiped of the value of Nikon in a day following their announcement
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
My Flickr Site
Instagram _alex_ham_
Gear - Canon 5D mkIII, 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L IS, nifty 50, 75-300 f4-5.6. Sigma SD Quattro H, Sigma 35 mm Art, Sigma 85 mm Art, Canon G1X MkII, Panasonic Lumix DMC LX3, iPhone.
Lot's of armchair experts advising Nikon what they should do. However, Nikon has better market researchers than those that frequent internet forums. The "Extraordinary loss", is simply an accounting term for a once off issue and is mostly due to restructuring. Due to the downturn in camera sales across all brands mostly due to camera phones, Nikon has had to shed over 1,100 employees and part of the loss is due to redundancies and payouts etc. Don't let internet forums doomsayers get you concerned, this sort of thing happens in many companies from time to time. It happened with my company and we are now just as profitable as ever, actually moreso. Nikon are a huge company, and sells more cameras than Fuji, Pentax, Olympus and pPanasonic combined several times over and will still be very profitable for many years yet, no need to be concerned.
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
My Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/
I think a lot of people are reacting to headlines rather than understand the meat of the story. But media need readers so they have a different agenda.
Anyways, as for Nikon I do think some of their recent efforts away from DSLRs have missed the mark. Namely the implementation of Nikon 1's, the whole Key Mission effort and cancelling DL's.
The cancelling of DL's is particularly puzzling to me because it seemed to be a product that could resonate with some of their core customers, who are enthusiast photographers who may want a smaller fixed lens option that's still part of their existing system camera ecosystem.
I thought I can also count on Nikon to execute the enthusiast and above end of their camera system but never really thought they did consumer end very well.
I was looking forward to the DL 18-50, even after the huge delay. What a shame it'll never happen.
Nikon FX + m43
davophoto.wordpress.com
Threadstarter
I think the predictions of Nikon's demise are probably an exaggeration but it is a warning sign.Originally Posted by Lance B
If you read Thom Hogan's blog about it, Nikon actually has a history of not listening to their customers and trying to dictate to their customers what they should want, rather than what they actually want. Thom (who is a massive Nikon advocate and uses primarily Nikon gear) is well regarded and has run a number of polls and the reality is Nikon does not seem to be doing anything similar. This is mirrored by my thoughts about Nikon where in 10 years, Nikon has never actually done any market research on me, despite spending in excess of $15000 on their gear. My guess is the only ones they ask are the professionals in their professional program and that's probably the only market they are actually doing well in.
With products like the 360, the question is who actually asked for these? They haven't produced decent DX lenses in ages despite the APSC market thriving, etc.
In fact, I'm the exact market that Nikon is losing so if anything, I'm the market they should be asking questions to.
Its worth reading his words on the matter because I think he is spot on.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/...inancials.html
It mirrors some of the issues I highlighted in this article which was written last year.
http://www.theoverratedphotographer....-is-where-you-
It would seem to me that both Canon and Nikon have the classic dilemma of market leaders. Do they continue to produce the product that they have got to the top with, or do they try to change horses midstream. If they continue the way they have, they risk losing the lead to newcomers, if they try to change they risk losing their loyal customer base. Let's face it, the bulk of their lead is based on lenses, which are specific to camera bodies and styles. There is little point in going to mirrorless unless you change the lenses as well. If you do that then you will seriously piss off your customer base because much of your new lens development will be directed at the new cameras. What to do. Clearly both Nikon and Canon have decided to rely on their loyal customers. It remains to be seen just how loyal those customers will be.
Threadstarter
I don't think they have to make that choice or lose face. I don't think they need to stop making Full frame DSLR's and Lenses, nor do they stop making APSC cameras and lenses. They're doing a great job there.
What everyone is saying is make a full frame and APSC mirrorless and make APSC pro glass so instead of bleeding customers to Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic etc to bleed them to your own products where you are still making profit.
What Thom raises as an interesting point is how many DSLR's do they actually need?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
perhaps they can't afford to do everything. Haven't you heard that the camera market is in a downturn? Profit is down, or negative in Nikons case. Do you really think they can do everything at once. How will they persuade investors to put the money in? Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji all have other profitable businesses to spread the load. Nikon don't.
I expect that they will have to shed some product lines in order to survive. We will find out within a year or so.
Threadstarter
The question is can they afford not to. Mirrorless has gone from 19% to 27% of the market since 2012, and that market is coming out of Nikon and Canons bottom line
I think that you will find that Canon and Nikon are more than likely working on mirrorless but want to make sure it fits within their line up. I also think that mirrorless is not the panacea that many think it is and the market for it will plateau. Camera phones have taken the entry level area like P&S and entry level DSLR's where Canon and Nikon made their bread and butter sales and is not something they could do anything about, lest they start making phones. I used to see most people with P&S and entry level DSLR's when I was first into photography (back then there were no camera phones or if there were the results from them were horrid), now I rarely ever see any of these type cameras, camera phones taken up the vast bulk of people who just want to record the moment and whack it on Facebook or whatever. The cost of sensors is coming down so quickly that I can see a time where phones could use 3 sensors each with a different lens, one for wide angle, one for standard and one short telephoto. I think that would keep even more people away from using a dedicated camera.
I agree that Canon and Nikon will be looking at mirrorless, but where to put them? If they put them at the high end they risk annoying their customer base. If they put them at the low end they risk missing the boat. Given the current profit squeeze, I think they will hold off for as long as they can. But how long is too long?
I also agree that mobile phones will take the bottom end of the market and it is the top and intermediate end that is what is being fought over. Nikon are in the most vulnerable position, not because they don't produce good cameras, but because they lack the financial clout of Canon. I think they are in for a rough patch, but they've had that before and bounced back.
Last edited by Steve Axford; 17-02-2017 at 7:29am.
Threadstarter
Low end of DX (to start) and low end of (FF). Drop out the lowest entry point for DX and FX and replace them. Do they really need a D610 and a D750? I doubt it.
I think the the low end would at least offer an entry point to Nikon with mirrorless, in time they may need a low end and high end in both DX and FF, but they would need the glass to match in APSC if they do that.
You've also got to remember that Nikon is a huge and will still be a very profitable company into the future, "extraordinary loss" notwithstanding - the "extraordinary loss", which is just an accounting term for a once off restructure etc, needs to be put into context. In other words, Nikon may shrink down a little to more of their core business of DSLRs etc, but for them to be as "successful" as companies like Fuji and Olympus etc for cameras, Nikon would have to shrink by probably more than a factor of 10. So, their long term success is more sound than all other camera companies other than Canon.
Last edited by Lance B; 17-02-2017 at 7:51am.
Nikon is not huge. It is less than 1/4 the size of Canon and 1/10 the size of Sony and 1/3 the size of Fuji. Even Olympus is about the same size. The total sales have dropped from just over 1 trillion Yen in 2013/14 to 0.82 trillion yen in 2015/16. They have reasons for concern.
Last edited by Steve Axford; 17-02-2017 at 8:04am.
Threadstarter
Someone already corrected you on the sizes so I wouldn't worry. Yes, they are a big share of the camera market, but they aren't that big as a company.
Let's put it to you this way, in Q4 2010 Nokia had it's highest sales. If someone told you then that within 5 years Nokia and Blackberry would be dead and Apple and Samsung would be the biggest phone manufacturers in the world, people would have laughed them off as being nutcases. The market has the potential to do big things very quickly. I'm not saying it will, but I think to say that "Nikon is safe" is naive. No one is safe, not Apple, not Canon, not Microsoft, no one.
The only thing protecting camera manufacturers is glass, but that protection won't last forever, it will just delay things so it doesn't mean Nikon can afford to make mistakes, it just means they have more time to correct them. The phone market was a 2 year cycle, cameras are about 5-7 years. The market can turn on you quickly. Let's say you have another bad quarter. People get nervous. Some people dump stock. Some people switch because they don't want to be left holding gear, and some people don't buy Nikon because they are nervous because of the negative press. Next year the results of worse as a result of an oversaturated second hand market, low sales and it exacerbates the issue. It becomes harder to turn it around, because you have less capital to invest in new ideas, you've downsized to save money which creates more negative press etc. Yes, it's unrealistic, yes its unlikely to happen, but anymore unrealistic or unlikely than if someone told you about Nokia in 2010? Nokia was still producing very good phones up till the time they disappeared, it just wasn't the phones the market wanted and that's what Nikon need to remember. Producing good gear and producing gear the market want are mutually exclusive.
If Canon produce a hybrid that allows you to flip a switch between optical and digital viewfinder in a second (not like the XPro2, a full hybrid where you get both) as their 1DMK4, Nikon could very quickly find their D5 sales drying quickly if that is what the market decides is the solution. Hell, if Nikon produced a good hybrid then could even steal some of the market back from the mirrorless. The point is, there could be a game changer in the market, we don't know what it is (or if it will be mirrorless) and we don't know who will fall away as a result.
I have no doubt Nikon is taking this seriously, but given the extent of their bad decisions, taking it seriously should involved restructuring from the top down, not getting rid of staff at the bottom.
Last edited by MissionMan; 17-02-2017 at 8:27am.
They are still a huge company (especially compared to many Australian companies) regardless of how they compare to Canon etc. Their camera sales are an order of magnitude more than Olympus, Fuji and Pentax etc. Sony, Fuji and Olympus are involved with other products, I am focusing on their camera divisions which is what this is all about. Lower total camera sales are affecting almost all camera manufacturers due to camera phones eating away at the lower end of the market, that is something no camera maker can do anything about unless they start making phones as well. Nikon camera division has no real reasons for concern about their future camera sales any more than Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Sony and to a lesser degree Canon - but I think Canon still needs to take heart because if camera phones keep getting better then they too will feel the wrath of less sales at the lower end of the market. Canon sold about 9.5million total sales of compact cameras and IL cameras whereas Nikon sold a total of about 6.5million units. FF DSLR's are still doing very well for Nikon especially against Canon, they just need to address APS C and mirrorless part of the equation, which I am sure they are going to do. Whatever the case, it is speculation as to where the camera market is heading.
- - - Updated - - -
My comment about Nikon being a huge company is in context of compared to many other companies, especially Australian companies. In other words, they are not some tiny company susceptible to going bankrupt any time soon as they have been very, very profitable for the past 11 out of 12 years. Also, another part of my meaning about Nikon being a huge company is that their camera sales are in the order of magnitude more than Fuji, Olympus etc.
You can't correlate Nokia to Nikon, in fact it is a completely different scenario. The difference between Nokia and Nikon is that part of the Nikon brand is also lenses where millions have huge investment in glass and other things, especially the professional photogs, and can't readily swap out to another camera company just for a slight benefit at a particular model cycle. People can very easily swap out their phone as a new model cycle comes through. There is nothing tying them to their phone. That is the difference. Also, the differences in camera performance between brands and model cycles is minimal and therefore not a real reason to swap brands at a whim.
Canon 1D MK IV has a switchable OVF to EVF? News to me.
As you say, there maybe a game changer in the market, but why does it mean that it is not Nikon? The problem here is all speculation and that speculation affects all camera makers, not just Nikon. In other words, they are all at risk.
A good article:
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/14/ni...ymission.aspx/
Last edited by Lance B; 17-02-2017 at 9:19am.
Threadstarter
Which is why I said "if canon" and why I also said "Nikon could". It could be anyone and everyone is at risk. But right now, on the latest tech, even hasselblad has produced a mirrorless and Nikon's last response at Photokina was "we'll continue to watch this space". Canon at least has the M5, M6 whilst Nikon is nowhere to be seen. The race started 5 minutes ago, and Nikon isn't at the start, they're still in bed sleeping.
It is possibly unwise to rate an international company by Australian standards. By international standards, one of Nikon's major weaknesses is their lack of size and diversification. It makes them more vulnerable than the competition to market downturns and readjustments.
"If" ? If I were handsome and could sing I'd be a millionaire. "If" is meaningless. Canon haven't and that's it.
I understand you were upset with Nikon at Photokina because they had nothing new to offer you other than a few new lenses, however, it seemed to me you just wanted something new, a change. For me it didn't bother me one bit as I wasn't really after anything and I didn't expect anything, they can't keep bringing in new whiz bang stuff at every camera show. The thing is, with regards to mirrorless, "Nikon might be late to the party, but they may come more appropriately dressed" due to the fact that they waited and made sure where the market was heading or, taking the party analogy further, what people were wearing at the party and could then possibly "steal the show with their costume". With entry level mirrorless users, they generally do not have a large investment in glass and thus can be wooed back to Nikon in the future when they enter that market and actually get it right. Nikon have a place for these people to aspire to if they want to go to a more professional system or to FF. Other companies don't. That is the ace up their sleeve.
- - - Updated - - -
It possibly does, but that can be said of many companies, even much larger than Nikon. However, Nikon is still a reasonably diverse company and unless there really is some new game changing photographic technological breakthrough, I see no reason as to why Nikon is in any real danger compared to many other camera companies. Canon would be just as at risk and so would their users as they have lots invested in glass as well. Yes, Canon may survive, but their user base would be just as affected their lenses etc may be just as useless. Again, this can be said of many less diverse companies as well. The fact is, there are many internet doomsayers and saying that Nikon are in crisis or are at risk is just perpetuating the typical internet Chicken Little syndrome, "the sky is falling":
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/14/ni...ymission.aspx/
Threadstarter
To be honest, I don't think many people were impressed with Nikon at Photokina. That's where this post came from to start with. Nikon's showing at Photokina was very underwhelming. Combine that with poor market results and it shows limited innovation and a flawed strategy and that's what people are complaining about. Apple has been in the same slump. Microsoft is innovating and they've turned things around. They didn't just turn it around with windows, they started innovating with hardware and following what the market wanted. They had some failures along the way, but you can't innovate without failing a couple of times. You could argue that nikon was doing the same with the action cam, but where does that tie into their existing market? where does it lead to more lenses or cameras? At least with microsoft, the hardware is incentivising people to shift from Apple and the longer they stay on microsoft, the less likely they are to go back.
No one is saying Nikon's full frame cameras aren't best of breed, no one is saying their full frame lenses aren't good and no one is saying they should stop doing that, but that's the only part they are doing well. If I was their CEO, I would be saying "we're doing this right, let's carry on doing that right, but...".
What you have to remember is that people don't just jump into a full frame and pro lenses, they start small and build up and Nikon isn't giving people the option to do that, because they've taken away one of the stepping stones. You have to take people on a ride. In the old days when anyone who wanted a half good camera would buy a DSLR, that was enough, but now it isn't. The market they lose now to mirrorless is a market they have lost later to pro glass as well, so not only are they losing the entry market, they have lost the stepping stone to the good stuff. If I started out now, let's say for argument sake I buy a Fuji XT-20 with a kit lens and I'm happy but I want to upgrade, I want a pro 70-200. So I look around the market and let say for argument sake I look at replacing my platform as part of it. I look at Nikon, and I have to buy a full frame ($2000) and spend $3000 on a 70-200 vs buying a 50-140 ($1500) in my existing system. Hmmmm. No thanks. It's going to more than 3 times the amount to do it. What incentive do I have to do it. If I am on a Nikon mirrorless and I do the same, well, at least I have the option of a DX 50-140 (if they create it) and or I can buy a 70-200 and keep my current body which is still substantially cheaper, but the options are there. In the above scenario, I would have to be a very unhappy user to switch, or I would need glass that mirrorless couldn't offer like a 400 f/2.8.
It's the same as the DL. Many respected people have said the canning of the DL was bad, because the X100 and similar cameras are stepping stones to platforms and they are premium markets. The X100 goes for $1400-1900. I.e. If you are a Nikon user and you want a small street camera, you buy the X100, get good image quality and suddenly you're left saying "hmmmm, this is pretty good, maybe I should try their XYZ". If they buy a DL, well that doesn't happen.
The thing is the upward creep of smartphones will affect the dedicated camera market equally, as there's really nothing that mirrorless offers that will change this any more than what DSLRs offer.
So this is a contracting market and there's the mad scramble for shares of this in what's left after the shake out.
So mirrorless technology will alter the market distribution, the question is how and when to jump across.
If you tackle DX mirrorless, FX mirrorless in addition to what you already have then that's 5 lines of lenses that Nikon needs to cater for. With infinite resources, sure, defend every position. But with finite resources where are you going to put that money.
Spread yourself too thin and you risk loosing more customers (feeling of abandonment of existing systems eg. Sony's Alpha DSLRs) than you actually gain in the new market because you can't introduce compelling options at quick enough rates.
I really don't see anything about mirrorless technology that screams market disrupting technology hence I don't think analogies to what Nokia or Kodak faced (and failed to act upon) aren't particularly accurate. If you really want to talk about potential disruptive technology, it would as likely if not more likely to come from the technology companies like Google or Apple than camera companies like Canon, Fuji or Olympus. But IMO it is a very different market, a matured one where 'good' enough has already been reached for the primary function of taking photos years ago. In addition you have a protective ecosystem as we're talking system cameras, much like what Apple and Google have built up.
So the switch to mirrorless is a transitional thing and Nikon and Canon has to figure how to best transition there. Canon is doing a better job.
But I do agree Nikon is more vulnerable, largely because they are less diversified.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
