They were never even close to going out of business. Not in the slightest outside of alarmist blogs and clickbait headlines.
Has Nikon fallen asleep
- Thread starter RichF
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Not to invite an argument but I think you might be a bit alarmist. Personally, I don't see any significant "gaps" in their product line for wildlife and nature photography, but what the heck do I know? I'm just an amateur
What I do see are the major camera manufacturers regularly leap-frogging one another with innovation, with the lead frog periodically flagging when their rivals turn up the temperature. A couple of years ago I read and heard how a lot of wildlife photographers were abandoning Nikon for Sony, and now Nikon is one of the (if not THE) industry leaders. Lots of unnecessary teeth gnashing and hand wringing, IMHO.
I don't at all see Nikon as slacking off. In. particular their lens assortment is pretty impressive. About all I am missing at this point is for Nikon to get around to releasing the long rumored next firmware update for the Z9. Each time they do that it is like getting a new camera for free. I am very glad they are milking every bit of capability out of my Z9's.
Talk about lenses. Who else has a lens comparable to the Plena? Or the 400mm and 600mm tc primes?
No, Nikon is not slacking.
Talk about lenses. Who else has a lens comparable to the Plena? Or the 400mm and 600mm tc primes?
No, Nikon is not slacking.
maranoblet
New member
I find it really strange that the more obvious (to me at least) lenses are missing completely:-
Where is the lightweight budget friendly 70-300 (Tamron version is very cheap feeling and has no VR) Nikon have always had one of these in their lineup.
The 28mm 1.8 prime? obvious hole in the 1.8 range
The 35mm 1.2? promised but not delivered.
Surely a wider angle prime is needed something like a 16 or 17mm 1.8?
The 70-200 f4 ( obviously completes the f4 trilogy), The 70-180 is good but it does not have VR and TC's seem a bit suspect on it.
A longer macro (Nikon could have gotten round this by making the 105 compatible with TC's but they chose not to)
Would it not make sense to make more of the budget small primes like the 28 & 40 plastic mounts?
No fast lenses for DX bar the 24mm 1.7?
Not enough vintage style lenses to match the styling of the ZFC or the ZF certainly no telephotos even with third parties
No tilt shift lenses
No fish eyes
The z range caters well for telephotos (best of the big three IMO) but a cheaper 300mm f2.8 wouldn't go amiss or for that matter the 300 f4, I was a big fan of the diminutive 300 f4 pf on f mount. Would be nice to see a z version. What about a 500 f4 (without tc to keep the cost down)?
I would have hoped to see updates of the Z50. ZFC, Z5 and Z7ii by now but it looks like Nikon isn't interested.
I don't think we will see anything else significant coming this year. I really hope next year will be better but perhaps we have been spoilt over the last 5-6 years and this is the new normal?
Where is the lightweight budget friendly 70-300 (Tamron version is very cheap feeling and has no VR) Nikon have always had one of these in their lineup.
The 28mm 1.8 prime? obvious hole in the 1.8 range
The 35mm 1.2? promised but not delivered.
Surely a wider angle prime is needed something like a 16 or 17mm 1.8?
The 70-200 f4 ( obviously completes the f4 trilogy), The 70-180 is good but it does not have VR and TC's seem a bit suspect on it.
A longer macro (Nikon could have gotten round this by making the 105 compatible with TC's but they chose not to)
Would it not make sense to make more of the budget small primes like the 28 & 40 plastic mounts?
No fast lenses for DX bar the 24mm 1.7?
Not enough vintage style lenses to match the styling of the ZFC or the ZF certainly no telephotos even with third parties
No tilt shift lenses
No fish eyes
The z range caters well for telephotos (best of the big three IMO) but a cheaper 300mm f2.8 wouldn't go amiss or for that matter the 300 f4, I was a big fan of the diminutive 300 f4 pf on f mount. Would be nice to see a z version. What about a 500 f4 (without tc to keep the cost down)?
I would have hoped to see updates of the Z50. ZFC, Z5 and Z7ii by now but it looks like Nikon isn't interested.
I don't think we will see anything else significant coming this year. I really hope next year will be better but perhaps we have been spoilt over the last 5-6 years and this is the new normal?
beano
Active member
I own the 200 f/4 macro, it’s a wonderful lens, I often use it on my z-bodies as well. What a bazooka! My wife still use her old 70-200 f/4 extensively on the d500 as well, it is actually not bad in the f-mount. But for sure, a z-version would be nice.
As would be a 300 f/4 replacement for my old AF-S version would be. And and and, haha. Nice to dream.
You mean Nikon does not hang on every letter we post here
I am shocked that they nIkon world does not revolve around us
Okay may be stretching it a bit but they were not doing well ..Not to invite an argument but I think you might be a bit alarmist. Personally, I don't see any significant "gaps" in their product line for wildlife and nature photography, but what the heck do I know? I'm just an amateur
Yea Nikon has done a great job. They have spoil us. Just like a kid who got an extra scoop of ice cream, I want MORE, MORE, MORE
fcotterill
Well-known member
Two Nikon cameras are pending, and there are at least 3 lenses, details unknown.
What's the Upgrade Path? | Thom Hogan
What's the upgrade path for someone already using the Z cameras?
www.zsystemuser.com
Nikon laser range finders went on sale today. The Nikon Hypsometer was on sale last week so I picked one up $100 off. It will tell me how tall the giraffe is as well as how far away. Accurate to 1 foot up to 1,000 yards and 3 feet up to 1750 yards. Pretty Good for a "Camera Company".
www.nikonusa.com
Nikon Forestry Pro II Laser Rangefinder/Hypsometer | Nikon
Nikon's Forestry Pro II Laser Rangefinder/Hypsometer provides accurate distance measurements for forestry. Shop Nikon rangefinders!
www.nikonusa.com
Interesting thread but is Nikon really sleeping more or less than any of the other manufacturers? I loosely follow when new gear comes out and must have missed all the new SonyCon lenses and bodies coming out.
I feel like they've done a good job of filling holes but with 85 years of lenses prior to the introduction of the Z mount it might take more than 6 years to get it all done.
I feel like they've done a good job of filling holes but with 85 years of lenses prior to the introduction of the Z mount it might take more than 6 years to get it all done.
I agree…DX is aimed t low end buyers so they need to be cheap…and cheap doesn’t go with the better sensor, EVF, processor, etc not to mention battery life due to all of that. Z8 is very slightly bigger and heavier than the mythical Z D500 every talks about but they couldn’t make a DX with capabilities at the price point it would need to hit. And while a few D500 lovers would buy it…the price would limit sales severely and they’re not going to invest R&D on something that won’t sell enough to be profitable.
Last edited:
Yes…D500 was cheaper but the sensor, EVF, and processor would drive the price beyond the DX price range…that’s the problem. They coul build a Z80/90 from a technical standpoint…but you probably can fit an EN-EL 15C in it and the Z50/Zfc battery has about hAlf the capacity the 15C does. Granted, you might save a little power on a smaller sensor but the processor is probably the highest load and it and the EVF along with the smaller sensor might get you 60%-ish of the Z8 battery life and that’s not a prime selling point. Simple really…better components cost more nd the DX bodies are designed for the $1,000ish price range.
There is optical design software…but from what I know it does things like ray tracing the light and calculating diffraction and numerous other factors…it doesn’t figure out how many elements and groups are best…that’s the input from the optical design physicists…so yes, lots of expensive designer input needed and many iterations of changing this thing and redoing all the calculations over and over…and they also need to be designed to a planned price point.
Nikon's transition has been interesting. Along with all the companies, they went from a market of 13 million camera bodies a year to 5-6 million camera bodies per year. That decline was almost totally in the entry level cameras - 4/3 and DX cameras. The enthusiast segment of the market has remained relatively flat with a little growth recently. During that time period, Nikon has almost completely finished a plan to exit entry level cameras which made up 65% of sales. Nikon has gone from 290,000 enthusiast and professional cameras to a forecast of 850,000 cameras to those segments. At the same time, they have changed the mount and moved to mirrorless with a completely new camera and lens lineup.
The release schedule has been thoroughly planned and thoughtful. The schedule for releases is planned years in advance. Each item has a specific target market, supporting lenses and accessories, and other elements for a successful launch. The EXPEED 7 processor is still young, and my understanding is Nikon will continue to deploy enhancements via firmware rather than via new cameras. It's a different model for the industry. Nikon is more profitable with this model because seasoned cameras - like the Z9 - continue to sell well because they keep getting better. It's good for the customer when they can buy more lenses but don't need to buy a new camera. It's good for Nikon because they avoid the expense of new product hardware and engineering, new product launch, marketing costs, etc.
Margins are very good after you sell 70-80,000 units of a camera and the costs are covered. Design costs are non-existent. There are software updates, but the cost is much less than hardware changes. And much of the software can be reused across bodies so Z9 advancements can be applied to the Z8 and Z6iii.
I do see some opportunities for additional lenses. Nikon has been pretty consistent with 6-7 new lenses per year. I don't see them going much faster or slower than that rate. Nikon does have the data and knows the actual success of older lenses. The 70-200 f/4 F mount lens was a good lens - and sold very poorly. I'd like to see such a lens, but Nikon probably has considered the expected sales and it's tough to argue. I'd love to have a Z 300mm f/4 with great close up capability. I could use a fast prime for astrophotography. I have some other specialty lenses that I liked when purchased but don't use very often.
The release schedule has been thoroughly planned and thoughtful. The schedule for releases is planned years in advance. Each item has a specific target market, supporting lenses and accessories, and other elements for a successful launch. The EXPEED 7 processor is still young, and my understanding is Nikon will continue to deploy enhancements via firmware rather than via new cameras. It's a different model for the industry. Nikon is more profitable with this model because seasoned cameras - like the Z9 - continue to sell well because they keep getting better. It's good for the customer when they can buy more lenses but don't need to buy a new camera. It's good for Nikon because they avoid the expense of new product hardware and engineering, new product launch, marketing costs, etc.
Margins are very good after you sell 70-80,000 units of a camera and the costs are covered. Design costs are non-existent. There are software updates, but the cost is much less than hardware changes. And much of the software can be reused across bodies so Z9 advancements can be applied to the Z8 and Z6iii.
I do see some opportunities for additional lenses. Nikon has been pretty consistent with 6-7 new lenses per year. I don't see them going much faster or slower than that rate. Nikon does have the data and knows the actual success of older lenses. The 70-200 f/4 F mount lens was a good lens - and sold very poorly. I'd like to see such a lens, but Nikon probably has considered the expected sales and it's tough to argue. I'd love to have a Z 300mm f/4 with great close up capability. I could use a fast prime for astrophotography. I have some other specialty lenses that I liked when purchased but don't use very often.
For a photojournalist…seems like the Z6III fits what they need.
The other part is the design characteristics they want for the lens. You can choose center sharpness vs. midframe to corner sharpness, shape and character of the bokeh, size and weight tradeoffs, etc.
Yep…just like Apple when Microsoft supposedly “saved” them. There used to be a web page named the Apple Deathknell Counter.
Well yeah…that too, which gets back to those expensive talented guys and gals.
I've got 15,000 images over the 90 days since the Z6iii was released - and less than 500 images with my Z8 over that period. It's a very good all purpose camera with a lot of capability.
Doug A.
Well-known member
For those reasons I think the 70-180mm f2.8 effectively is the Z mount version of the 70-200mm f4. Not sure if the 70-200mm f4 had VR or not. That is a often claimed shortcoming of the 70-180mm, but with the ability to shoot at really high ISOs now, getting a shutter speed fast enough to hand hold is not the issue it used to be. I know wildlife photogs want to use a TC with this lens range and can't with the 70-180mm, but I don't think that lens was ever intended for wildlife photogs. I never use it for wildlife as for me 400mm is the minimum focal length for that. All that being said, I can't imagine Nikon having a 70-200m f2.8 S, a 70-180mm f2.8, and a 70-200mm f4. But then I never imagined they'd release a 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 in Z mount to go along with the f1.8 and f1.2 offerings either. I would not be surprised to see a 85mm f1.4 by year end. They do have a noticeable gap in their 200/300mm range that is begging for a fast-ish prime. Would love to see a 300m f3.5 S lens.
Sorry to be a pedant but the 70-180 takes a tc.
Sort of true - the image quality based on the earlier Sony design, either at minimum focus or with a TC is far from good - mine went back less than 1 day after taking delivery.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Well, Fuji has its APC stacked sensor MILC, and the price is surprisingly low around US$2000. Nikon must be losing potential customers to that system. In fact Thom Hogan's flagged this leakage attributed to no higher end DX options in the Z system.
Nikon already has everything they need to build the high end DX Z aka Baby Z9.... This is the Z9 code (Fw 5), EXPEED7....Z6 III EVF into a Sereebo body, ENEL15c batteries etc
The new Partially-Stacked Sensor technology should allow a more economical way than using a fully stacked DX sensor in the Z90. Priced at ~$2K this DX Professional camera should push up lens sales.
Similarly to the D5 > D500, the Nikon sensor lab should be able to squeeze down the Z6 III sensor layout into a DX 24.5mp P-S sensor. They can milk the returns on this same sensor in a series of DX upgrades over the next decade.... Zfc II, Z50 II, even the updated Z30.
As @EricBowles explains it very well, above, Nikon's new strategy has abandoned Entry kit cameras (also P&S) in favour of Hobbyist (Enthusiast) and Pro cameras. The latter 2 categories include the DX models, filling important niches in the existing market, including young photographers, who like the Zfc. A Z90 will be the camera for aspiring sports and wildlife photographers
Last edited:
The DX problem for Nikon is the same for Canon-no quality DX specific lenses.
The big three have ceded the lightweight wildlife still camera to the OM-1 mk 2 which is obviously and intentionally optimized for birds. At today's discounted prices an OM-1 mk 2 and a 100-400 zoom can be had for $3+K and has an 800mm FF equivalent reach and weighs in at less than 4#.
Why bother competing with that? It isn't like OM Systems is setting super sales numbers.
Canon, of course, has the 32mp 1.6 crop R-7 and combined with the 100-500 zoom also reaches 800 FF equivalent reach but bird specific capabilities such as a decent readout speed, a usable pre-capture and a deep buffer are missing. (The R-7 appears to be a low-cost, general-purpose offering that is fine with low-cost lenses like the 100-400.) The R-7 is not a bad camera for wildlife with the 100-500, but it is heaver, clunkier and more expensive in addition to the bird specific capabilities that it lacks.
Where does Nikon fit in this picture?
The big three have ceded the lightweight wildlife still camera to the OM-1 mk 2 which is obviously and intentionally optimized for birds. At today's discounted prices an OM-1 mk 2 and a 100-400 zoom can be had for $3+K and has an 800mm FF equivalent reach and weighs in at less than 4#.
Why bother competing with that? It isn't like OM Systems is setting super sales numbers.
Canon, of course, has the 32mp 1.6 crop R-7 and combined with the 100-500 zoom also reaches 800 FF equivalent reach but bird specific capabilities such as a decent readout speed, a usable pre-capture and a deep buffer are missing. (The R-7 appears to be a low-cost, general-purpose offering that is fine with low-cost lenses like the 100-400.) The R-7 is not a bad camera for wildlife with the 100-500, but it is heaver, clunkier and more expensive in addition to the bird specific capabilities that it lacks.
Where does Nikon fit in this picture?