Now Nikon is on the ropes?

[BDR-529]

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.

ILC camera bodies are exactly like operating systems. They are totally useless alone. All the value comes from applications which are available on any given operating system or in this case lenses and other accessories. Nikon really sucks here because they were the last one to enter mirrorless FF bandwagon and their Z-mount lens portfolio is extremely limited compared to pretty much any competitor.

This is the real problem for Nikon who should somehow find enough money, time and resources to create an entire competitive portfolio of native Z-mount lenses. And not by tomorrow. They need it by yesterday. And they must do this alone since third party lens manufacturers have already placed their bets on other horses and don't seem to be interested in supporting yet another non-compatible mount which has pretty marginal user base. Without external lens manufacturers Z-mount will have almost zero affordable FF lens options and based on some reviews I've seen, even expensive Nikon Z-mount lenses are not up to the standard expected at their price leve.

I also believe that the decision to create a mount which has the shortest flange focal lenght (16mm) makes it impossible to simply mount a new bayonet at the rear end of any existing 3rd party mirrorless FF lens which seems to be the modus operandi of Tamron, Sigma et al. Because Sony was the first to enter this market and became the 800 pound gorilla, all 3rd party designs are originally made for E-mount.

Luckily for Panny and Canon it's a simple task to replace E-mount with L-mount or RF-mount bayonet and a 2,0mm spacer because flange focal length increases from 18mm to 20mm but this is not possible if you must go from 18mm to 16mm. Optical system must be re-designed if Z-mount support is required as well.

Why bother especially if Nikon is stuck in the olde worlde and believe that they are still the 800 pound gorilla of high end lenses and not willing to even talk to external lens manufacturers.

 

[Mack]

Last camera store we had the owner was grumbling about Nikon having two tiers for a Nikon dealer: A consumer and a pro one. The consumer shops got the cheap stuff that was hard to sell like multi-colored Coolpixes (And no one would ever buy them as cellphones replaced those things.), and some cheaper DSLR gear. The Pro stores had to fork over $50K orders to them to get the Pro range of stuff which hurt many smaller shops.

Nikon also managed to piss off many pros who could not get something simple fixed in the field, like a missing screw or battery door in Alaska, at the local camera or repair shop as they refused to sell parts to anyone but their own service shops. Canon kept that door open.

I have a feeling Nikon may take a upswing with Olympus gone. Their gear is shrinking in size and weight even being FF. I was surprised to see that small Nikon Nikkor Z mount (Albeit DX size.) 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3 VR lens for <$300. That lens on a Z body is going to be quite small in size. If they could get their PF zooms in the same Olympus sizes, they too will be smaller on FF. Have to wait and see what their plan is.

If they go back to 3rd party distributors (e.g. Malaysia), that may open up the parts and service again similar to what they had in the USA with EPOI running their show in the USA in the 1960-80's. One could call the EPOI parts girl and she'd look it up and mail it out (Actually, when I dealt with her in the store she knew the stuff before I even ended talking. Seems some stuff that goes bad happens over and over again.).

I did see Nikon signs at the local Costco optical center. Guess they got into glasses, or lenses for them. Once Covid hit, that department shut down and the glasses cases were empty. Even with them re-opening, I don't see any Nikon signs out. Dunno.

They were heavy into making bomb sights, but that seems to have been replaced with Laser guidance. I think they also got out of gun sights too recently.

 

[caonidayeah]

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.

Luckily for me, I bought a used zuiko 7-14 F4 for cheap. The lens is a gem for sure. Don't think I'll buy a mzuiko 7-14 unless i turn landscape/architecture pro in all unlikelihood.

 

[davidzvi]

I personally have a different point of view from the Canon / Nikon question. I had very few issues, regularly had good service, and didn't have to pay a membership fee to get that service.

I also look at the current mirrorless lens offerings from both and like what I see in Nikon's lineup more. Nikon already has wide primes; has more primes and; like many of there other Z lenses; are actually reasonably affordable, including an affordable wide zoom option. Canon has been able to create smaller and lighter 70-200 zooms, but at the cost of them not working with a TC. I'm not sure why that point doesn't seem to get mentioned.

And late to game? The Nikon 1 was out 10 month before the EOS M and the Z6/Z7 were announced a month before the EOS R. And Nikon's offerings seemed like more like true complements to their upper level DSLRs while the EOS R/RP seem more like EOS M upgrades. It wasn't until this year and the EOS R5/6 that the bodies really seemed like a 5D alternatives. With the Z6/7 most D750/D850 users wouldn't have a problem going from one to the other. That's a BIG difference as many pros shoot with at least 2 of the same bodies. (I did both similar and or the same bodies for events).

Yes they did not invest, market, support, etc as they really should have.

Just IMHO, YMMV

 

[Robstar1963]

I personally have a different point of view from the Canon / Nikon question. I had very few issues, regularly had good service, and didn't have to pay a membership fee to get that service.

I also look at the current mirrorless lens offerings from both and like what I see in Nikon's lineup more. Nikon already has wide primes; has more primes and; like many of there other Z lenses; are actually reasonably affordable, including an affordable wide zoom option. Canon has been able to create smaller and lighter 70-200 zooms, but at the cost of them not working with a TC. I'm not sure why that point doesn't seem to get mentioned.

And late to game? The Nikon 1 was out 10 month before the EOS M and the Z6/Z7 were announced a month before the EOS R. And Nikon's offerings seemed like more like true complements to their upper level DSLRs while the EOS R/RP seem more like EOS M upgrades. It wasn't until this year and the EOS R5/6 that the bodies really seemed like a 5D alternatives. With the Z6/7 most D750/D850 users wouldn't have a problem going from one to the other. That's a BIG difference as many pros shoot with at least 2 of the same bodies. (I did both similar and or the same bodies for events).

Yes they did not invest, market, support, etc as they really should have.

Just IMHO, YMMV

Ive certainly been pleasantly surprised by the relative affordability of the Nikon Z series lenses
Currently (UK official dealer pricing with discounts)
Z 14-30 f4.0 S £899, Z 20mm F1.8S £829, Z24mm F1.8 £764, Z35mm F1.8 S £609, Z50mm 1.8 S £409, 85mm 1.8 S £599
Z 24-200 f4-6.3 Z24-70 f4 £819

Certainly not a cheap range of lenses but most of the Z lenses are very highly rated particularly for sharpness and the 1.8 primes at least seem to represent great value

I would assume that the 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 80mm would render a similar if not better overall image quality to the Olympus PRO primes and as such imo are more ‘affordable‘ than one might expect, similar in size with the benefit of much better noise control at high ISO

With regard to the 70-200 offerings from Nikon and Canon - current U.K. Nikon Z70-200mm f2.8 £2399 (very highly rated and rated by some as the best lens available in that range) vs Canon RF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM £2659

The Canon although smaller (when not extended for full range) is not as mentioned by @davidzvi able to accept a TC which makes it far less versatile

Nikon Z 70-200mm 2.8 + 2.0 TC £2998, Canon 70-200 £2659 so you get 70 - 400 with Nikon for £350 extra (or 70 - 280 with the very highly rated 1.4TC for £300 extra compared to the Canon)

Im very lucky as I bought my 70-200mm f2.8 with a big discount at £1839 so I can eventually get 70-400 at £2438

I certainly agree that Nikon made some huge mistakes with their Z range including single card slot albeit that it was a more reliable XQD slot - bearing in mind that the target market was always going to include wedding photographers and other PRO users

The battery grip for the original Z6/Z7 was purely a battery grip with no provision whatsoever for additional controls attached for portrait shooting - again bearing in mind some of the target Wedding and PRO users !!!
The cameras did not have any electrical contacts designed into them for consideration of a fully functional battery grip !

I cannot for one minute fathom the decision making process for those considering that Nikon was struggling with rapidly declining sales and turnover and these particular (mirrorless models) could have been seen as being able to potentially turn around the fortunes of the company

I am sure judging by the huge number of adverse comments about the card slot, battery grip (and focussing issues) that better conceived Z6/7s would have made a much bigger dent in the losses being made by Nikon

This imo was a lost opportunity which Nikon is still recovering from by releasing the Z6 and Z7 11 which many consider have the features which should have been released in the first place (2 card slots, battery grip with additional controls and better focussing)

I personally bought my Z6 at a very good price so have no qualms about it’s features and abilities especially as firmware 3.0 improved the focussing, added eye detection and improved the triggering of the focus tracking

I was able to buy into Full Frame at ‘reasonable’ cost so am very happy with my Nikon equipment - I don’t think I would have been a happy bunny if I’d been a pre order buyer of the original Z6 or Z7 at full retail two years ago and can understand those loyal Nikon users that did so and were very disappointed

I think that the Z6/7 ii are much better products with basic features that potential users require in cameras at the relevant price points

They may not (at least yet pending potential fw upgrades) have class leading focussing (eye detection being a point which is often compared against Sony and Canon) but they like the original mk1 models have several things going for them (which I considered carefully when choosing Nikon) including very good ergonomics, very good interface, an extremely good and very large EVF (which is set back away from the surface of the rear screen for better comfort in use), very good quality dust and weather sealing, generally excellent build quality and at least in the case of the Nikon Z6 vs Canon R6 - comparable price point

Anyone considering venturing into FF would imo be wise to consider these non ‘headline‘features and qualities of the Nikon Z range rather than considering only the ‘Headline’ advantages of the Sony range which gets a fair amount of criticism for things like build quality, dust and weather resistance, EVF quality
It’s not all about ultimate focussing ability which many users will not even benefit from compared to the benefit of other qualities I have highlighted


(I do also think that the Nikon 1 series was ill conceived bearing in mind that Micro Four Thirds sized sensors were already considered by many as being too small - trying to sell a mirrorless camera system with an even smaller sensor was never imo going to be a win for Nikon with a further compromise in image quality and noise control)

 

[davidzvi]

@Robstar1963, I agree about the dual cards. But then neither do the EOS R or RP.

But I could care less about the grip. I could rotate the camera with my hand on the grip much faster than I could release the grip, rotate the camera, and regrip in another position. Grips also add size and weight that I never wanted, especially since I carried two bodies most of the time while shooting events.

 

[Pluttis]

I also look at the current mirrorless lens offerings from both and like what I see in Nikon's lineup more. Nikon already has wide primes; has more primes and; like many of there other Z lenses; are actually reasonably affordable, including an affordable wide zoom option. Canon has been able to create smaller and lighter 70-200 zooms, but at the cost of them not working with a TC. I'm not sure why that point doesn't seem to get mentioned.

Both Canon and Nikon have huge user base locked up in EF and F mount and they need to lure them over to RF and Z mount and invest in RF ans Z lenses.

Personally i think Canon is smart in creating unique lenses for the RF mount that is not available for EF mount as many of the modern EF lenses perform really good (both optically and af wise) with the adapter which means many EF users want upgrade to RF lenses if they dont see a big step up optically or if they offer something unique that cant be found in the EF line up.

 

[davidzvi]

Sigma rumored to start making mirrorless lenses for Nikon Z-mount in 2021

Read more: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/12/06/...for-nikon-z-mount-in-2021.aspx/#ixzz6fstGCZIR

 

[RichardC]

Sigma rumored to start making mirrorless lenses for Nikon Z-mount in 2021

Read more: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/12/06/...for-nikon-z-mount-in-2021.aspx/#ixzz6fstGCZIR

Good. The more they make, the better they will get at it. Hopefully they'll make a few more stunners for Olympus too.

 

[bargainguy]

Looks like the Viltrox 85/1.8 AF will be the first third-party full frame AF lens in Z mount:

https://photorumors.com/2020/12/05/...orless-lens-for-nikon-z-mount-the-85mm-f-1-8/

 

[betamax]

Both Canon and Nikon have huge user base locked up in EF and F mount and they need to lure them over to RF and Z mount and invest in RF ans Z lenses.

In the case of Nikon, their DSLR's already had superb sensors, whereas Canon where still a generation behind.

If I had a D750 with it's class leading sensors I'd gain from IBIS and a slightly smaller body, but these benefits wouldn't be as obvious to me unless I'd already seen what they can do. Whereas if I had a 6D or maybe even a 5D Mark ii or iii I'd be looking at the R5 or R6 and the leaps and bounds canon have made since then.

 

[Pluttis]

Ouch...really hope Nikon can turn the ship around.


https://petapixel.com/2021/01/19/nikon-to-focus-on-mirrorless-as-it-anticipates-historic-720m-loss/

 

[Mountain_Man_79]

I feel like the best bang for your buck in the digital camera world is a Z5. Unfortunately I doubt it will right the ship at this point, but can it help stop the bleeding? I hope so.

 

[Mack]

My guess, with Olympus fading out of the scene, Nikon may make a move to capture more of those who leave Olympus providing they keep their Z cameras small AND provide smaller lenses like Oly/Panny do/did, maybe a f/4 series of S-quality lenses along with some PF optics for size and weight.

Right now, they cannot provide enough Z7 II cameras to fulfill orders so it isn't all doom and gloom for them. The Nikon Rumors site this AM said they were "In stock" (USA) at Adorama, B&H, and Amazon yet they weren't when I just checked, nor Best Buy or Samy's in CA either. Still back-ordered - and I have had one on order from December with B&H too.

I do think APS-C and DX sized sensor cameras might fail to the Smartphone camera people. The new Samsung S21 Ultra has the equivalent of a 100mm optical lens camera in one of the three on its back and supposedly a 10X digital zoom (So 1000mm in a cell phone?). Once they begin installing those periscope folded cameras with a possible 8-9x optical zoom, it's gonna hurt the large ILC sales even more given their price point. If people keep dropping out of printing photos and settle for cellphone-sized photos, it'll sting ILC even more.

My 2 cents.

 

[amit]

Negative operating income ?
So they are losing with every camera they sell , before calculating R&D ,management etc...
Thats a big red sign...

 

[pdk42]

Ouch...really hope Nikon can turn the ship around.


https://petapixel.com/2021/01/19/nikon-to-focus-on-mirrorless-as-it-anticipates-historic-720m-loss/

$720m is a helluva loss! I dipped my toe into Nikon last summer (Z7) and didn't stay, but I'd hate to see them fall victim.

 

[Hypilein]

No Cameramanufacturer is in a good position right now. Arguably Nikon is a bit worse than most, but really it's just Camerapress driving the next pig through the village after Olympus. If I wanted a FF mirrorless these kind of rumours would not affect my buying decisions and this should be the same for everyone. I'm not interested in FF either way, though.

Corona also really screws with the numbers.

 

[Pluttis]

A bit worse ?...would say that's a understatement, Nikon anticipate to make a loss of $720 million and Canon on the other hand is expecting to make a $616 million profit

 

[Steveinslc]

Canon and Sony are well positioned. They are big, diverse companies, and have made fairly good decisions, though it took Canon a while to get there. Panasonic will probably also be OK, as they are big and diverse, and have a big video business. They will have to decide how much they want to stay in the mid-market for stills. Fuji is also pretty diverse, and has the MF business as a distinguishing factor.
Nikon is in a tougher position, as are Olympus and Pentax. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see one or more of them not around in 2-3 years. Which is sad as those are three of the most historical companies.

 

[WT21]

I want to explore going Nikon in a few years if m43 really drops, but 1) they need to produce more compact lenses like Sony and their partners are doing, and 2) they need to be around!

I don't see ANY reason to move, or even buy new gear from anyone, TBH. Which just makes the situation worse, I know, but I just don't see it.