Truer words were never spoken. I spent 16 years in the financial news business. And, frankly, Wall Street needs a spanking. They're a bunch of spoiled children who demand that money be loaned free (to them, not consumers) forever and that they receive unreasonably high returns on any and every company they buy shares in.Most Japanese public issue manufacturers are encountering activist investors who insist—in a very low interest rate environment worldwide—on positive, tangible returns from all departments of a company. Eyes were on Olympus for its scandals and for its dominant medical 'scope position, and long-term pressure forced the Imaging divestment. Same for Panasonic and its sensors, and Panasonic is still under criticism.
It's a combination of disruptive tech and investment eyes on performance; 2 disruptions. Olympus has 1/10th market share of even a diminished Nikon.
2012 D800 (and later D810) was using 36.4MP Sony IMX094 which, according to DxOMark, was the best FF sensor of it's day scoring 95 points (Sony A7 III scored 100).As an aside, people seem to be dumping their D600 & D800 cams.
How do they rate in comparison to the EM5 / EM1 sensors?
Asking for a friend... mainly macro, cats, bees, occasional low-light.
Nikon's f/1.2 and f/2.8 zooms are less than Canon's or Panasonic's and about the same as Sony's. Only the f/1.8s are more from hat I've seen. And Nikon released their f/4 zooms and f/1.8 primes while all that Canon had was at the time was f/1.2 primes or f/2 & f/2.8 zooms. You could buy into Nikon for much less Canon initially and the Z6/7 are better (IMHO) than the R/RP.......the other main flaw is their S lenses's price compare to the competitors......
I agree that Nikon never supported APS-C with glass, but it wasn't until they tried to merge D300 and D90 into the D7000 that they crippled their APS-C bodies. The D300, D700, and D3 had a lot of the same tech. Then it was a 4-5 year mistake (the D4 years) until they released the D500, D850, and D5. And for that release they released the D500 and D5 together with the D850 later; the same thing they did with the D300, D3, and D700......It's not just the Nikon 1. They never really had their heart in APS-C, either. Every Nikon line of cameras was crippled in some way. If you wanted all the top line features in a Nikon, you always had to go to their full-frame DSLR's.
Nikon was forced to finally acknowledge their mistake when they started losing money big time a few years ago. Their Z line of cameras is quite good but I'm afraid it may have come too late. Perhaps the Nikon brand will survive, but it may not remain an independent company.
People have been dumping the D600 since it was released with oil spotting issues, I dumped mine. (Or more specifically I dumped the D610 when Nikon replaced my D600 with a new D610.)As an aside, people seem to be dumping their D600 & D800 cams....
Amusingly, I just picked up a D600 for a song this afternoon. Looking forward to having a few more pixels to play with than my D700. Hopefully delivered in the next day or twoPeople have been dumping the D600 since it was released with oil spotting issues, I dumped mine. (Or more specifically I dumped the D610 when Nikon replaced my D600 with a new D610.)
I have always thought that the small lightweight Panasonic 2.8 zooms were much better thought out than the larger heavier Olympus alternatives.What do you mean mistake of trying to compete with FF? You think they would have succeeded better if they would have kept releasing only similar small lenses (which were already in their arsenal), and not make Pro-lenses? While everyone currently seems to focus on enthusiast & professional markets in camera industry to make a profit.
Yeah, well the strength of M43 system is having two companies providing cameras and lenses. Not sure why Olympus should make identical lenses themselves. I have seen many love the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens for it's small size compared to similar lenses from other systems.I have always thought that the small lightweight Panasonic 2.8 zooms were much better thought out than the larger heavier Olympus alternatives.
My EM5 with the 12-35 and 35-100 were and are a great travel/hiking combination.
The huge heavy 7-14 was a big mistake on my part. I never got on with this lens, it got left at home when I hiked. Probably this lens was the reason I saw no point in persevering with M43.
You're really going to need to stop injecting logic and facts into these debates. It's akin to peeing in everyone's cornflakes.For the doom and gloomers lifted from Tom Hogan's site
I've been getting an uptick in "Nikon is doomed, what should I do?" emails this past week, partly because of sensationalized headlines of news scraping Web sites that finally got around to covering some earlier Japanese press articles that articulated some of the stresses on Nikon and what the company is doing about it. These panicked emailers apparently didn't read the article I pointed to on Seeking Alpha.
So let me say this: yes, Nikon is under deep stress because both divisions that produce almost all of their sales are undergoing simultaneous cyclical and market issues. Being under stress doesn't mean going out of business or exiting a business. Moreover, I've never seen a company so tight about micromanaging financials as Nikon. They built up cash and and preloaded some debt—they're not highly in debt—because they saw their problems coming long before any Nikkei article appeared or news scraper Web site decided to publish doom and gloom headlines. Unless there's some clear catastrophe that no one has foreseen—and I truly mean catastrophe—Nikon will come out of their current problems smaller and more focused, and yes, profitable. The company itself predicts this will happen in their next fiscal year.
What people forget is that Nikon Imaging has "failed" in the true consumer camera marketplace not this once, not twice, not thrice, but at least four times that I can count in my lifetime. At the end of the film SLR era, their market share had dropped badly and was approaching 20%. By refocusing, and mostly on high enthusiast and pro offerings (D1, D1h, D1x, D100), Nikon increased their market share by 50% over the course of a few years. I wouldn't bet against them doing it again.
What I do worry about, and have pointed out for dozens of years now, is that Nikon has never embraced the customer in the high enthusiast/pro camera market. By embrace, I mean engage in meaningful communication with them, and treat them well. Like customers you want to keep selling to over time. This is a friction against their continued success, and it needs to stop. Nikon is still operating on 1950's IBM-style management advice, and it shows.
Sounds pretty familiar to Olympus & JIP transaction. But yeah, we hear from doom mongers that it won't happen and JIP only destroys companies instantly.
I've actually heard this very sentiment from some loyal Nikon users I know. They say many Nikon users have this inclination to leave the brand when deciding to go mirrorless, because they assume they will have to start over anyway, seemingly unaware that adapters are available for their lenses. It's not even that Nikon isn't seeking input from their loyal customers, it's that they aren't really trying to reach their customers at all through modern means (YouTube, forums, social media). I'm paraphrasing, so not my thoughts there. For a company as in-tune with their finances as they claim to be, maybe they should check on the pulse of their customers.What I do worry about, and have pointed out for dozens of years now, is that Nikon has never embraced the customer in the high enthusiast/pro camera market. By embrace, I mean engage in meaningful communication with them, and treat them well. Like customers you want to keep selling to over time. This is a friction against their continued success, and it needs to stop. Nikon is still operating on 1950's IBM-style management advice, and it shows.
I say Nikon may have been too late with the Z series because the company is already in financial trouble. And, even if the system sells reasonably well, it's a much smaller pie these days than even five years ago.I'm not sure why "Nikon was too late"? The Z6/7 were announced before either the R or RP was announced. Is it just because Canon had the M series?