
Nikon “extraordinary loss” kills DL cameras and slashes jobs - rtcoms
https://www.slashgear.com/nikon-extraordinary-loss-kills-dl-cameras-and-slashes-jobs-13474817/
======
callmeed
_> with increasingly capable smartphones chewing through the dedicated
photography segment. Still, it seems Nikon has suffered it worse than most._

The damage from smartphones was done a while back. The truth now is that Nikon
(and Canon to some extent) failed to be at the forefront of: (a) action/drone
cameras, (b) 4K video recording, and (c) mirrorless interchangeable-lens
cameras. Sony and Fujifilm have seen a real renaissance in their mirrorless
camera lines (I switched from Canon to Fuji and haven't looked back). Sony has
small mirrorless cameras that shoot 4K on par or better than Nikon. GoPro
created a billion dollar public company yet Nikon only just recently announced
their own action cameras.

I worked in the photo industry for several years and Nikon was once the gold
standard. IMO they have no one to blame for their current state than
themselves.

~~~
monksy
I agree with most of what you've said. However,

To claim that smartphones are a replacement for P&S cameras is I think
misguided.

P&Ss perform a lot better on vacation. They don't perform as good on brief
everyday interactions.

A. Action cameras- Not sure why this is a category, but people do consume
GoPros like crazy [despite quality issues]

B. 4k video recording, you do have a good point there.. that's mostly for the
vloging community.

C. I think this is the category that isn't well published. I just recently
bought an Lumix LX10. It was expensive but the results are great.

I loved my Nikon CoolPix S6800, but Nikon decided to drop the ball and that's
why I moved over. (Cannon's had a nasty red bias I couldn't tolerate)

~~~
thaw1234
Smartphones are, in fact, a replacement for point & shoot. It's true that they
have a smaller sensor ( ~2 times smaller than that you would find in your
average P&S ). However * You already have one... * In fact it's probably
either in your pocket or your hand right now. * Your smartphone has a far
superior UX and the photo can be uploaded anywhere in seconds. * Smartphone
sensors - being mass produced at a very large scale in a market which is quite
under pressure to constantly improve with short release cycles - actually
perform very well for their size.

So, cameras market mostly make * Very high quality P&S such as the sony RX100
* DSLR & Reflex for enthusiasts * Professional cameras

However, why they don't try to improve the workflow & the UX of these cameras
is a mystery to me. Proper software ( android based maybe ? - sony already run
some kind of android ), touch-enabled UI, gps, accelerator wifi & articulated
screen should be standard.

I love my sony a6300 but the UI drives me crazy. You have to go through a
crappy UI, pay several dollars, to download an intervalometer - aka an app
that will take photos at a specified interval of time.

And sending a photo to another device seems such a pita I didn't even bother
to try.

~~~
anigbrowl
Awesome as smartphone cameras are, they're also slooooow compared with a P&S,
and doing everything through a touchscreen is never as good as dedicated
buttons. More features don't automatically make something better.

~~~
throwanem
> [slow] compared with a P&S

Really? I've found it to be the opposite - my iPhone SE beats a Coolpix A900
every time. I don't have wide experience with P&Ses, though, so maybe that's
just a slow camera? But it'd have to be a _very_ fast camera for the overhead
of a case vs. a pocket to cease to make a difference.

(And I carried the case slung on the outside of my satchel, partially under
the flap but otherwise exposed. All it took was a tug, a flip, and a yank -
but my phone was still faster, every time.)

~~~
anigbrowl
It's faster than turning your P+S on. Not for taking pictures once it's
already on (assuming a reasonably up-to-date camera). For casual/consumer use,
a phone is better. but if you're serious about photography, the convenience
issues aren't the same.

It's like how there are all kinds of amazing music apps available on
smartphone or tablet - it's beyond question that they are valuable creative
tools. But if you can play guitar, you'll probably always prefer doing so to
using your phone despite the inconveniences of owning and carrying a primitive
wood and metal wire contraption.

~~~
thaw1234
If you are serious about photography, you will want something better than a
P&S ( or, a very expensive model such as sony RX line)

~~~
anigbrowl
Why not both? I like a DSLR best but a good P&S is a lot more usable than a
phone. For one thing you can operate it without having to look at it because
it's got physical controls.

Sticking with my parallel guitar argument, that's like saying that you should
use an app to make guitar tines unless you're willing to invest in a Martin or
Les Paul guitar. In reality someone's favorite guitar might be a $10 thrift
store purchase that delivers far more satisfaction than (insert your favorite
guitar app here).

------
porsupah
It's worth bearing in mind that the loss is primarily due to their lithography
business, rather than imaging:

[http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/20170213_1_e.pdf](http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/20170213_1_e.pdf)

"In accordance with this restructuring, the Group recorded extraordinary loss
of 29,790 million yen, mainly incurred from inventory write-downs/write-off in
Semiconductor Lithography Business, as restructuring expenses for the nine
months ended December 31, 2016."

~~~
degenerate
Also, Canon has been kicking Nikon's butt at form, function, and price in the
camera market. This is strictly my opinion and the same of some of my friends.

~~~
mahyarm
Really? How so? Lenses are pretty close in price & the D600 had a much better
sensor than the 6D for example.

~~~
slantyyz
Don't Nikon DSLRs generally beat Canon with their DxO sensor scores?

~~~
jdietrich
Nikon have better sensors, Canon have better lenses. Neither company can keep
pace with Sony and Zeiss.

~~~
iamatworknow
Even with Nikon struggling, I would (and have) choose them over Sony. There
are a lot of people frustrated with how they've treated the whole A-mount lens
system.

One of the things I love about Nikon is that the lens my dad shot with in 1993
works perfectly well on my camera from 2016. People spend a lot of money on
glass (with good reason), and to have the camera manufacturer get wishy-washy
on whether or not the line will be supported in the future must be concerning.

~~~
jdietrich
E-mount is significantly superior to A-mount for MILC cameras. The extremely
short flange length means that it's compatible with pretty much any lens with
a suitable adapter.

Your dad's old lens F-mount lens will work perfectly on an E-mount camera,
with full AF and aperture control. So will any A-mount or EF-mount lens.

~~~
slantyyz
>> work perfectly

Isn't the AF is slower and less accurate with those adapters than on their
native platform?

~~~
jdietrich
If you're using a Metabones or LA-EA4 adapter on a camera with phase detect
AF, there's no practical difference. AF will be slower on a camera that only
has contrast-detect AF.

~~~
slantyyz
The LA-EA4 doesn't count since it doesn't cover your statement "Your dad's old
lens F-mount lens will work perfectly".

Every Metabones review I've seen had slightly slower AF. "Perfectly" still
does not apply. Also, not all lenses work with Metabones, i.e., the lenses
that don't work with teleconverters because their backs stick out too much.

While I appreciate the benefits you're selling, those adapters aren't perfect.

------
perardi
Damnation, I was hankering for the DL 18–50. I'm an ultra-wide-angle addict,
and that would have been an amazing "I'm packing really light for this trip"
camera.

Thom Hogan, a longtime Nikon pundit, has good thoughts on how badly Nikon is
handling this disruption. (I think smartphones are one of the best examples of
Christensen disruption; they started out awful, are still relatively awful,
but they are cheap, ubiquitous, and get the job done of getting photos of your
cats and kids to Facebook instantly.)

[http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/dl-turns-out-to-mean-
dea...](http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/dl-turns-out-to-mean-dead.html)

~~~
buserror
To be fair, I've been using a Panasonic DMC-GM1 with a 14mm pancake for a few
years and I don't really see how the DL would have improved on that... A bit
more speed, but then again the GM1 is not even on sale anymore and Nikon
failed entirely to release their take on the ultralight 4/3 equivalent...

Years too late!

~~~
acomjean
For those that don't know what 4/3 cameras are.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system)

The camera business had a new small interchangeable lens almost pocketable
camera "standard". The micro 4/3 used sadly by only olympus and panasonic.
When I travel to take pictures I take a canon 5D SLR and a much smaller
olympus micro 4/3 with a wide angle zoom.

Why Canon/Nikon/Sony go their own way with incompatible small mirrorless
cameras I have no idea. I would love more lens options for micro 4/3 and those
big camera makers make great glass...

------
ChuckMcM
Its a very tough business to be in. A number of camera makers relied heavily
on the higher volume point and shoot markets to fund their higher end cameras.
And these days it is unusual to see someone using an inexpensive point and
shoot camera rather than their phone.

~~~
marcuskaz
It's a tough business if you just sit back selling mediocre cameras and don't
innovate. Numerous companies from Leica, to Sony, to Fujifilm have thrived in
recent years even with all the improvements in smartphone cameras. It seemed
to have taken Nikon and Canon much longer to adapt to the changing market.

~~~
carterehsmith
Can we see a chart that shows how Leica or Sony or Fujifilm cameras have
"thrived" since the introduction of smartphones?

------
petepete
Long term, I think this is a good move for Nikon. Phones have eaten the DL's
intended market, and at the DL's price there are already better options
available in the same form factor.

Mirrorless is the future; if there was a mirrorless Nikon camera that could
take advantage of decades of F-Mount lenses, surely they'd be on to a winner

~~~
slantyyz
>> Phones have eaten the DL's intended market

Dunno about that, DL's were targeted for enthusiasts. Basically Sony RX100
buyers.

>> if there was a mirrorless Nikon camera that could take advantage of decades
of F-Mount lenses

There is a mirrorless Nikon camera that can take advantage of decades of
F-Mount lenses. It's called the Nikon 1 series.

~~~
petepete
> There is a mirrorless Nikon camera that can take advantage of decades of
> F-Mount lenses. It's called the Nikon 1 series.

Ah, the all but dead Nikon 1 with a ~£200 adaptor.

~~~
slantyyz
It may be all but dead and a mockery to some purists, but the platform is
still a pretty good one.

Even now, it's still the mirrorless system that has AF tracking that comes
closest to an SLR in terms of performance (if you take Thom Hogan at his
word).

They got a lot of stuff wrong in the early iterations (price, UI, handling),
but the last iteration, the J5 was pretty darned good (basically an RX100MK3
with interchangeable lenses).

I switched to the 1 series a few years ago from an APS dslr because I just
wanted smaller gear, and I've been totally happy with absolutely no regrets.
When I go on vacation, I bring two bodies and three lenses and they take up
about as much room as one APS-C DSLR with a superzoom. Why two bodies? So I
don't have to bother switching lenses like I had to when I had an SLR.

I get that the platform isn't for everyone and I wouldn't recommend it to many
people, but it's far from being the bad system that a lot of people make it
out to be.

~~~
petepete
Ah, the only Nikon 1 series I've tried was the S1, I was quite impressed.
Tiny, light, great pictures in good light. I can totally see why people like
them; precisely the reason that people are now flocking to Fuji and Sony's
systems.

I have many Nikon lenses, if I could use them with a mirrorless body (Dx or
Fx), I'd buy it in an instant. I'd probably take it and my 35mm f1.8 with me
everywhere.

~~~
slantyyz
>> Tiny, light, great pictures in good light.

Now that the J5 is basically using the Sony RX100MK3 sensor (not exactly but
very close), you can add "bad light" to the equation.

>> I have many Nikon lenses, if I could use them with a mirrorless body (Dx or
Fx), I'd buy it in an instant.

You can use them adapted on a Sony A7. I am pretty sure you can get AF with
Canon lenses (not the fastest, but not horrible), but I'm not 100% sure if
they've done the F-mount yet.

------
pthreads
It's sad to read about the downward trajectory of Nikon's future. I loved
their interchangeable lenses. In my opinion they were better than Canon's (not
enough space here to go into details). I had an 80-200 f2.8 telephoto that,
between multiple owners, probably saw 15+ years of service and still going
strong.

~~~
rangibaby
Even if they go bust, there is a hope they will get back to their roots and
end up remaking their classic lenses like Voigtlander or Meyer Optik Goerlitz.

Nikon (and Canon I think) problem these days is a body is a body. Their bodies
aren't dramatically different to those of other manufacturers, yet they still
demand a premium price. Fujifilm and Pentax for example offer good enough or
better alternatives at reasonable price points and are doing just fine.

I want Nikon to do well but they need to try harder.

------
LeifCarrotson
> According to Nikon, “with the identification of issues with the integrated
> circuit for image processing, release of the three cameras was delayed
> indeterminately.” The company had a team working on addressing those
> problems, but “it has been decided that sales of the DL series will be
> canceled due to concerns regarding their profitability considering the
> increase in development costs, and the drop in the number of expected sales
> due to the slow-down of the market.”

I'm curious which of these was the larger cause of the shut-down. Did an
insurmountable technical issue cause them to cancel the program? Or did they
want to cancel the program because they didn't forecast profitability?

------
supahfly_remix
Does Nikon design its own chips, or do they source them from an external
vendor?

~~~
marcuskaz
The majority of the sensors are from Sony, with some from Toshiba and Nikon
themselves.

[http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-
cam...](http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-
their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/)

------
justicezyx
I do hope they find a way to sustain their high-end DSLR line. Otherwise, I
think the price tag is going to increase too much...

------
Thaxll
Sounds like Kodak's fate.

------
luckydude
I'm a Canon guy (1DX II, 5D III, 7D II and lots of Canon glass, a couple of
Sigmas, a Rokinon) and I try and convert my buds to Canon from Nikon all the
time. Here is why.

For decades the leader in [D]SLRs was either Canon or Nikon. Yeah, yeah, there
are others, I started out on Pentax as did many people back in the film days,
but it was clear 35-40 years ago that it was either Canon or Nikon if you were
serious (and more yeah, yeah, Hasselblad was a thing back then but they priced
themselves out of the market as did Leica and Zeiss etc. Awesome stuff but
$$$$).

Who was "best" bounced back and forth and it really didn't matter if you
picked Canon or Nikon, if Canon was best now, wait a few years and it would be
Nikon.

It's important to realize that the consumer equipment, including all those
plastic crappy kit lenses, generated a lot of revenue and that money funded a
lot of high end equipment. I tend to doubt that Canon sells enough of their
$12,000 600mm lenses to cover the costs of development. Maybe, but I doubt it.

Nikon stumbled at the wrong time. They stopped being best (for the most part,
the D800/810 were and are amazing bodies) quite a while ago and they haven't
recovered.

This is just my opinion (all of this is just my opinion for that matter) but I
think the reason they haven't recovered is that they dug themselves into a
hole right as point and shoots, and then cell phone cameras, got "good enough"
for the masses. Definitely not good enough for anyone serious, compare any
portrait taken with a phone to something taken with Canon's 200mm f2 (by far
my favorite lens) or even Sigma's 85mm f1.4 Art. You can't get that dreamy
smooth background with that razor thin depth of focus that makes the person
pop, it just can't be done. But I digress.

Nikon is in trouble because of the loss of revenue from the low end P&S and
consumer DSLRs. For the low end, phones are good enough and they are always
with you.

Canon doesn't have that problem, they've got 75-80% of the high end market,
look at any sporting event and you'll see a sea of big white lenses, those are
all Canon.

Canon also has a dramatically better line up of lenses and for anyone serious,
it's the glass that costs the money, I've got far more money tied up in glass
than I do in bodies. Nikon used to have one lens that Canon had no answer for,
the 14-24mm f2.8, I lusted after that lens. But Canon came out with the
16-35mm f2.8, which is _sharper_ than a 15mm Ziess prime and that's it in my
book, game over. There is nothing that Nikon has that Canon doesn't have as
good (and mostly better). And Canon has a ton of glass that Nikon doesn't
have.

Canon is also better positioned, they make a lot more stuff than Nikon does,
they are serious players in anything with a lens, their movie stuff generates
money, their printers generate money, their security stuff generates money,
they can weather pretty much anything.

I shoot semi pro sports and all my pro friends are dumping Nikon (while they
can get anything for their glass) and moving to Canon.

Tl;DR: Nikon is in trouble, Canon is fine, the DSLR market is strong at the
mid to high end. Low end is dead.

------
TheOneTrueKyle
As much as I love my sony A7s-II, the UI has been a nightmare and Sony won't
update the app to support the Pixel so that is useless now.

However, I still haven't seen a 4k mirrorless equivalent from Canon so my Sony
is still the best option for what I want to accomplish.

I still use Canon and Nikon glass however.

