Nikon Faithful

[EricBowles]

Hogan observed that Nikon doesn't listen to its customers and doesn't think in system terms. Eg. if you bring out DX bodies then you need all the bits that support them, like flashes; not just a limited range of lenses.
Like it or not, the bloggers and reviewers shape market opinion.
Edited

But the Z6II and Z7II included virtually every feature customers said were missing from the Z6/7. It's hard to say Nikon is not listening. But they don't intend to be all things to all people. People ask for some crazy things, and people usually are slow to respond to change - even if the change has a good reason.

Nikon's core business strategy is technology driven camera and optical company. They are not customer centric - they are technology centric. They do not have a strategy of being the low cost provider either. These core strategies are important and companies that try to straddle the fence between two options almost always fail.

Nikon has established a focus on the Enthusiast and Pro segments - with a plan that 90% of cameras and lenses will be sold to those segments. The lenses are outstanding and affordable. The low end camera segment is the one that has declined the most - to the point where it lacks the scale to be profitable. Nikon's Z50 is a good camera - and many people who use it for travel or casual use also have a full frame camera.

 

[JANuser]

But the Z6II and Z7II included virtually every feature customers said were missing from the Z6/7. It's hard to say Nikon is not listening. But they don't intend to be all things to all people. People ask for some crazy things, and people usually are slow to respond to change - even if the change has a good reason.

Nikon's core business strategy is technology driven camera and optical company. They are not customer centric - they are technology centric. They do not have a strategy of being the low cost provider either. These core strategies are important and companies that try to straddle the fence between two options almost always fail.

Nikon has established a focus on the Enthusiast and Pro segments - with a plan that 90% of cameras and lenses will be sold to those segments. The lenses are outstanding and affordable. The low end camera segment is the one that has declined the most - to the point where it lacks the scale to be profitable. Nikon's Z50 is a good camera - and many people who use it for travel or casual use also have a full frame camera.

Indeed, some people don't seem to get how the world works. Nikon is a profit driven company, like all buisnessess. Some people still seem to think that businesses "care" about customers, they don't. This idea of care came from marketing, not reality. Big companies care about two things, profit and keeping shareholders happy.

The question is, does Nikon have the ability to make products that are attractive enough for customers to want them. Current marketshare numbers sugguest a percentage of new unit buyers do. It's not as many as it once was, but they are far from dead.

 

[Dummy]

I've used Nikon cameras exclusively beginning with the F2 because of their claim for "No Planned Obsolescence". I've heard it said that we 'date our cameras' but 'marry our lenses'. Cameras changed over the decades but Nikon was faithful to their word by preserving lens mount compatibility up to and through the DSLR. As noted by Steve in a previous post; nonetheless, given the wider lens mount for all mirrorless cameras and assuming that we'll eventually want native mirrorless lenses, we'll need new and expensive lenses (in addition to cameras) even if we hold on to our old F mount equipment. Right now, Sony's long GM lenses and recently announced a1 are offering bird photographers: 1) 50 MP, 2) 30 FPS, 3) 8K video, 4) 9.44m-Dot EVF, 5) dual CFexpress card slots, 6) AF to f22 (which means that we can use TCs at f-stops of 8+), 7) bird EYE, etc, etc. What are we waiting for?

 

[Dummy]

Gentlemen of the Forum.So what is the Bottom Line Stick with Nikon not!!

 

[Strodav]

Gentlemen of the Forum.So what is the Bottom Line Stick with Nikon not!!

I respect your right to hold that opinion, but opinions are formed from speculation given Nikon Photography has fallen on rough times. Many, many companies go through rough patches during their lifetimes and end up pulling it out. In Nikon's case, It only takes one new model camera to turn it all around.

 

[Dummy]

I respect your right to hold that opinion, but opinions are formed from speculation given Nikon Photography has fallen on rough times. Many, many companies go through rough patches during their lifetimes and end up pulling it out. In Nikon's case, It only takes one new model camera to turn it all around.

It wasn't a opinon I just enquiring as a Newbie i take advice from yourself and the forum

 

[JANuser]

Gentlemen of the Forum.So what is the Bottom Line Stick with Nikon not!!

Depends on how deep a person is into the system, and if you feel like what you have now does what you need it to. If the camera and lenses you have do what you need them to, Nikon could go bankrupt tomorrow and it wouldn't matter one bit. If it isn't and you have the money, go for it make the change if you want. My experience has been that changing brands is usually as waste of time and money, they aren't that different.

 

[Dummy]

Thankyou for advice

 

[fcotterill]

There's much in favour of persisting in the Sweet Spot, as Thom Hogan terms it ie D850 and/or D5 and augment with MILC with due caution. This applies especially to cameras IMHO and especially on the economics.

 

[fcotterill]

Looking further ahead at Nikon's future. They are not cutting their primary, but in fact investing in the future, and intriguing to read: "... we will continue to invest firmly in the image processing engine so that we can differentiate ourselves with the body and lens.."

"R & D will concentrate resources where it can be differentiated from other companies. Although it costs money, we will continue to invest firmly in the image processing engine so that we can differentiate ourselves with the body and lens. On the other hand, areas that can be shared in product development will be streamlined. For example, software (mounted on the body). In the past, software was developed for each model, but (from now on) software will be common to all models.

Looking ahead to 5 and 10 years ahead, we are investing in elemental camera technologies in advance. We are not in a situation where we have to cut investment as part of cost reduction."

｢当面はミラーレス集中､勝負はこれからだ｣ インタビュー／ニコン常務執行役員 池上博敬 | 特集 | 東洋経済オンライン

premium.toyokeizai.net

 

[Thern]

I agree 100%. The thing is, I believe a lot of people get caught in the trap of thinking unless you have the "best" camera (which is subjective depending on the shooter), then you are somehow missing out. The truth is, there is a LOT of overlap between cameras and brands and they have more in common than people think. The differences between roughly equivalent levels of camera (mid-range, pro etc) from brand to brand are minor when it actually comes time to pretty the shutter.

Hmmm with all respect but that sounds a bit strange @Steve.
Why do you shoot Sony next to Nikon (like you said yourself for now not excluding the possibillity you jump ship completely?)
To me it’s a simple ‘question’.
I’ve been shooting Nikon for more than 50 years as an actionshooter.(combat/warzone during my working days and after retirement wildlife) and I was happy with the quality and capabillities of their systems.
Then Sony released their Alphaseries and ‘everybody’ especially the Sony fanboys told us fossils we had to chose the mirrorless route because the DSLR would render obsolete in a few years and Nikon would die.
When I tested the A9 against the D5 it couldn’t convince me to even consider to buy one.
No ecosystem, no lenses (then), hopelessly complicated UI, a grainy EVF in lowlight, AF NOT like I expected from the hyperbole, no weathersealing and miserable ergonomics (I have a size XXXL in my gloves)
Today with the A9II Sony adressed a lot of the cons I named before (but it’s still a Sony LOL)
Bottomline is I bought the Z7 and we used it with pleasure but it’s no actioncamera, neither is the Z7II.
So if you accept the transition into mirrorless as an inevitable fact and you want to go that route you chose for the mirrorless system with the most appealing specs (to date) for your kind of shooting.
Long story short at this moment Nikon has nothing to offer to compete with Sony or Canon.
I went the Canon route probably still would despite the rave about this A1.
There’s more to a camera than just that camera and I’m sure Canon with its better ergonomics will be able to keep up with Sony.
For now I still use some Nikon gear, but it wouldn’t surprise me when I switch to Canon completely in the near future.
(It’s very hard to develop musclememory for Canon stuff if you’re used and still use Nikon)
Btw one of my biggest annoyances with the Z7 was that friggin FTZ adapter, bulky and slowing down the otherwise blistering fast F-mount lenses.
The Canon adapters have no impact on the speed of the ‘old’ EF- mount lenses and they’re slim (and smart)
I never did and never will understand why Nikon crippled the F-mount lenses when used with their Z-system.
(Well I guess I do which would make that a unethical decision)

 

[Tiago C]

I think your reply is strange, Thern.

 

[dabhand16]

Based on the (incomplete) data in photosynthesis, < 100 000 D3's were sold, and not many more copies of the D4 and D4s (in total); even less D5's and barely 1500 D6's are listed. Some of the biases in this comparison are obvious, but the point is at its peak of the DSLR market, in any era (i.e. D3, D4, D5....) sales of prosumer/hobbyist cameras far exceed the Pro model of the day.

I would not expexct anything else. There are many more hobbyists than there are pros who need what the Dx series will do. Add to that the many pros will use high end consumer cameras if they don't need what the Dx series can offer and that leaves the pro user base for action, wildlife and sport as the only customers for new Dx series cameras along with the few hobbyists who can afford a new Dx camera.

Then you have the length of time a pro will hang on to his/her camera. A new shutter is about a tenth of the cost of buying a new model and in the event that a pro's camera has to be replaced, a used later version will often be all that is needed. Add the law of diminishing returns when a new model is only marginally better that an existing one and many will not buy a new one. With the advances of the high end hobbyist cameras they might but one of them.

Back in the film days I had my Pentax SV for 18 years and the replacement Olympus OM-2 SP for about the same time. In 18 years of digital cameras I've bought 5 new Nikons (6 if you count the Coolpix 885 to see what digital was about) when a later model made it easier to do something or had an improvement in an area I was having issues with or was just better than I already had. D70s, D300, D700, D810, D850. Alongside this to see what mirrorless was all about I bought a used Fuji XT-1, then as I loved it, went to a used XT-2 in six months then a new XT-4 after 2 years. So that is 3 cameras in 2 years, but only one new one.

 

[Thern]

I think your reply is strange, Thern.

I’m devastated

 

[Thern]

There's much in favour of persisting in the Sweet Spot, as Thom Hogan terms it ie D850 and/or D5 and augment with MILC with due caution. This applies especially to cameras IMHO and especially on the economics.

Allthough I fully agree Frank I’m debating whenever the money for a high-end camera (or a lens these days especially with the changing mounts) is economically justified for ‘a hobby’.
A large group of enthusiasts buys ‘the latest and greatest’ (yup! guilty as charged) these days with never any revenue.
I guess there’s no answer for that, everybody buys and acts depending on ones own possibillities, insights, charactre, urges, demands etc.
Economics do apply to the Pro-shooter not the hobbyist imo.

 

[Steve]

Hmmm with all respect but that sounds a bit strange @Steve.
Why do you shoot Sony next to Nikon (like you said yourself for now not excluding the possibillity you jump ship completely?)
To me it’s a simple ‘question’.
I’ve been shooting Nikon for more than 50 years as an actionshooter.(combat/warzone during my working days and after retirement wildlife) and I was happy with the quality and capabillities of their systems.
Then Sony released their Alphaseries and ‘everybody’ especially the Sony fanboys told us fossils we had to chose the mirrorless route because the DSLR would render obsolete in a few years and Nikon would die.
When I tested the A9 against the D5 it couldn’t convince me to even consider to buy one.
No ecosystem, no lenses (then), hopelessly complicated UI, a grainy EVF in lowlight, AF NOT like I expected from the hyperbole, no weathersealing and miserable ergonomics (I have a size XXXL in my gloves)
Today with the A9II Sony adressed a lot of the cons I named before (but it’s still a Sony LOL)
Bottomline is I bought the Z7 and we used it with pleasure but it’s no actioncamera, neither is the Z7II.
So if you accept the transition into mirrorless as an inevitable fact and you want to go that route you chose for the mirrorless system with the most appealing specs (to date) for your kind of shooting.
Long story short at this moment Nikon has nothing to offer to compete with Sony or Canon.
I went the Canon route probably still would despite the rave about this A1.
There’s more to a camera than just that camera and I’m sure Canon with its better ergonomics will be able to keep up with Sony.
For now I still use some Nikon gear, but it wouldn’t surprise me when I switch to Canon completely in the near future.
(It’s very hard to develop musclememory for Canon stuff if you’re used and still use Nikon)
Btw one of my biggest annoyances with the Z7 was that friggin FTZ adapter, bulky and slowing down the otherwise blistering fast F-mount lenses.
The Canon adapters have no impact on the speed of the ‘old’ EF- mount lenses and they’re slim (and smart)
I never did and never will understand why Nikon crippled the F-mount lenses when used with their Z-system.
(Well I guess I do which would make that a unethical decision)

I'm in a different boat than most. First, this isn't a hobby, it's a career.

Second, I have to hedge my bets a bit. Although I think Nikon will still be here 5 years from now, at the time I added Sony - and lacking a crystal ball - their financials were trending otherwise (in fact, they still aren't great - losing less is still losing). Since I focus on photography eduction and the largest part of my income is from my online sales, I thought it was prudent to learn what, at the time, looked like it would be the dominant mirrorless system (and I still think that may be the case). Just waiting to see what Nikon would or would not do as their market share slipped was not a smart option for me. (Heck, I may add Canon too before this is all over)

The thing is, it takes time - months and years - to really learn a new system. Although I know others are happy to spend a week with a camera and declare themselves an expert, I am not. I wanted to make sure that if the time came where Nikon just didn't have enough market share to provide enough interest in my materials I had something else to offer. As it is, I have seen a decline in my Nikon-specific materials (both paid and free).

In addition, I also run workshops and those account for the second largest part of my income. Up till now the vast majority of my participants were Nikon shooters, but that's starting to change and I'm seeing more Sony now. My workshops are educational in nature and it doesn't look too good when people are asking me how to set / fix a problem with their camera and I have no clue. Although it could be argued that they should know how to use it before they come, that's little comfort to someone who just spend thousands on a trip and is missing shots because they can't figure out what's wrong with their camera.

In short, I don't have the luxury of waiting to see if Nikon makes it.

As for Sony quality / abilities, I'm perfectly happy with my a9ii, 600 F/4, 100-400, and 200-600. All perform well. My a9ii outperforms my old D5 and is neck and neck with the D6 - in some ways (takeoff shots) it's far superior. On a bad day, my keeper rate with my Sony setup is as good as my Nikons - on a good day Sony is better.

 

[DavidT]

I'm in a different boat than most. First, this isn't a hobby, it's a career.

Second, I have to hedge my bets a bit. Although I think Nikon will still be here 5 years from now, at the time I added Sony - and lacking a crystal ball - their financials were trending otherwise (in fact, they still aren't great - losing less is still losing). Since I focus on photography eduction and the largest part of my income is from my online sales, I thought it was prudent to learn what, at the time, looked like it would be the dominant mirrorless system (and I still think that may be the case). Just waiting to see what Nikon would or would not do as their market share slipped was not a smart option for me. (Heck, I may add Canon too before this is all over)

The thing is, it takes time - months and years - to really learn a new system. Although I know others are happy to spend a week with a camera and declare themselves an expert, I am not. I wanted to make sure that if the time came where Nikon just didn't have enough market share to provide enough interest in my materials I had something else to offer. As it is, I have seen a decline in my Nikon-specific materials (both paid and free).

In addition, I also run workshops and those account for the second largest part of my income. Up till now the vast majority of my participants were Nikon shooters, but that's starting to change and I'm seeing more Sony now. My workshops are educational in nature and it doesn't look too good when people are asking me how to set / fix a problem with their camera and I have no clue. Although it could be argued that they should know how to use it before they come, that's little comfort to someone who just spend thousands on a trip and is missing shots because they can't figure out what's wrong with their camera.

In short, I don't have the luxury of waiting to see if Nikon makes it.

As for Sony quality / abilities, I'm perfectly happy with my a9ii, 600 F/4, 100-400, and 200-600. All perform well. My a9ii outperforms my old D5 and is neck and neck with the D6 - in some ways (takeoff shots) it's far superior. On a bad day, my keeper rate with my Sony setup is as good as my Nikons - on a good day Sony is better.

Well said! I for one am excited for you to learn Sony as I ordered an a1 to dip my toe in and see what I think. One concern I had about it I was to switch I don’t have you as a resource and I’ve found all your books and videos to be amazing resources.
It is smart business to expand your knowledge and customer base. I look forward to you start posting videos, articles and eventually books about the Sony system.

 

[FB101]

I'm in a different boat than most. First, this isn't a hobby, it's a career.

Second, I have to hedge my bets a bit. Although I think Nikon will still be here 5 years from now, at the time I added Sony - and lacking a crystal ball - their financials were trending otherwise (in fact, they still aren't great - losing less is still losing). Since I focus on photography eduction and the largest part of my income is from my online sales, I thought it was prudent to learn what, at the time, looked like it would be the dominant mirrorless system (and I still think that may be the case). Just waiting to see what Nikon would or would not do as their market share slipped was not a smart option for me. (Heck, I may add Canon too before this is all over)

The thing is, it takes time - months and years - to really learn a new system. Although I know others are happy to spend a week with a camera and declare themselves an expert, I am not. I wanted to make sure that if the time came where Nikon just didn't have enough market share to provide enough interest in my materials I had something else to offer. As it is, I have seen a decline in my Nikon-specific materials (both paid and free).

In addition, I also run workshops and those account for the second largest part of my income. Up till now the vast majority of my participants were Nikon shooters, but that's starting to change and I'm seeing more Sony now. My workshops are educational in nature and it doesn't look too good when people are asking me how to set / fix a problem with their camera and I have no clue. Although it could be argued that they should know how to use it before they come, that's little comfort to someone who just spend thousands on a trip and is missing shots because they can't figure out what's wrong with their camera.

In short, I don't have the luxury of waiting to see if Nikon makes it.

As for Sony quality / abilities, I'm perfectly happy with my a9ii, 600 F/4, 100-400, and 200-600. All perform well. My a9ii outperforms my old D5 and is neck and neck with the D6 - in some ways (takeoff shots) it's far superior. On a bad day, my keeper rate with my Sony setup is as good as my Nikons - on a good day Sony is better.

I really don't think you have a choice - livelihood is a different beast from hobby. The only real question is what systems to be master of in order to provide value others are willing to pay for. Canon would be logical because of the market share but it's also crowded. Nikon is a niche, but you master it and maintaining that edge won't be as demanding. Sony is new, not as well served and fast growing - good edging bet. You could always choose to become the world expert on Leica for wildlife, I think there are two people out there willing to pay well for advice; unfortunately Lenny Kravitz doesn't do wildlife

 

[Strodav]

It wasn't a opinon I just enquiring as a Newbie i take advice from yourself and the forum

Don’t look for consensus from any online photography forum as there are as many different opinions as there are participants. Many times there are even disagreement on fundamental facts. Your perspective is probably much different than mine and is certainly different than a professionals perspective. What I like about forums like this is the additional information that comes with different perspectives, which helps me make a decision that is right for me.

 

[Woodyg3]

I don't think of myself as "Nikon Faithful" but rather practical in sticking with what works for me. My two D500 bodies have a lot of life left in them, and they do the job quite nicely. I'd rather save the money and use it for travel when this virus finally permits.

 

[Steve]

I really don't think you have a choice - livelihood is a different beast from hobby. The only real question is what systems to be master of in order to provide value others are willing to pay for. Canon would be logical because of the market share but it's also crowded. Nikon is a niche, but you master it and maintaining that edge won't be as demanding. Sony is new, not as well served and fast growing - good edging bet. You could always choose to become the world expert on Leica for wildlife, I think there are two people out there willing to pay well for advice; unfortunately Lenny Kravitz doesn't do wildlife

Thanks. And I am considering Canon, but when I added Sony Canon was no better in the mirrorless world than Nikon so that helped with the decision. If I were adding a system now, man, it would be tricky to pick between Canon and Sony. Plus, my finances are limited so adding thousands for a new system is quite an undertaking. If I do add Canon, it'll be awhile - I'm still sort of building my Sony system (and still recovering from the financial outlay). It's a tricky game - and that's one of the reasons I'm starting to do less review videos and more technique / how-to videos - it's not as brand-centric. Heck, the BIF book I'm working on at the moment is brand agnostic as well.

 

[Woodyg3]

... brand agnostic as well.

Brand agnostic, best term I've read in a long time.

 

[Anjin San]

Gentlemen of the Forum.So what is the Bottom Line Stick with Nikon not!!

Yes...for the foreseeable future for nobody not making money from their images. Inertia, muscle memory, and cost are big drivers...especially if current gear meets your needs. .

 

[Venkatesh VT]

Thanks. And I am considering Canon, but when I added Sony Canon was no better in the mirrorless world than Nikon so that helped with the decision. If I were adding a system now, man, it would be tricky to pick between Canon and Sony. Plus, my finances are limited so adding thousands for a new system is quite an undertaking. If I do add Canon, it'll be awhile - I'm still sort of building my Sony system (and still recovering from the financial outlay). It's a tricky game - and that's one of the reasons I'm starting to do less review videos and more technique / how-to videos - it's not as brand-centric. Heck, the BIF book I'm working on at the moment is brand agnostic as well.

Steve.Can we preorder your BIF ebook

 

[DavidT]

Thanks. And I am considering Canon, but when I added Sony Canon was no better in the mirrorless world than Nikon so that helped with the decision. If I were adding a system now, man, it would be tricky to pick between Canon and Sony. Plus, my finances are limited so adding thousands for a new system is quite an undertaking. If I do add Canon, it'll be awhile - I'm still sort of building my Sony system (and still recovering from the financial outlay). It's a tricky game - and that's one of the reasons I'm starting to do less review videos and more technique / how-to videos - it's not as brand-centric. Heck, the BIF book I'm working on at the moment is brand agnostic as well.

I would think if you journal your trial of Sony coming from another system, in this case Nikon as very interesting to many! Look at how popular of a discussion the Sh*t just got real thread is. Many of us are in the same boat. Do we stay with Nikon, do we try another brand, do we go all in and switch? It would be very interesting and educational to go along with your journey. What you like, don't like, initial impressions, the contrast and compare from an experienced wildlife photographer. I don't think anyone else out there has done it with wildlife as the focus. I think it is healthy for all of us to be open minded, willing to learn, understand that each system has its pros and cons and by seeing how this applies to wildlife it helps us make a more informed decision on what is best for us to individually do. I noticed some a9 images you posted the other day and I think it is the first ones I have seen you post from the Sony system and they were amazing!