Today Nikon announced one of the most unexciting new cameras to date. A little updated D810 DSLR. But why should we care about that? Well read that:
WSJ is blaming Nikon’s strategy and praising Olympus! Here is what they write:
The market shows growth in just one category: “mirrorless” cameras. Nikon was among the last of major Japanese makers to release a mirrorless camera, and still offers only a handful of models. The company likely fears cannibalization of its high-end DSLRs, but its strategy seems not to be working. Nikon’s camera division, more than two-thirds of the company, posted a 9% revenue decline for the year through March.
Incoming chief executive Kazuo Ushida said the company plans to dive into medical equipment, in which it has no expertise…while rival Olympus is already a global leader in medical imaging, as well as in mirrorless cameras.
As we told you before Olympus “hopes” to reach a break even for the current fiscal year. The recent mirrorless worldwide market growth could help them to realize their goal.
145 Responses
that would be nice.
shame Nikon didn’t try make the smallest/lighest D800 possible
then it wouldnt be a D800 ahat
It’s because of F-mount which is mirror-based system. Nikon or Canon can surely make compact FF mirrorless, just as Sony does now. But Nikon has to introduce a new mount. And this will be like a disaster for millions people who own F-mount lens.
You’re still convinced Nikon’s troubles are due to the F Mount? That issue was solved in the 90’s for goodness sake. It’s way more than the F mount. It’s the mirror box and their desire to not let go of what has worked in the past. The trouble with hanging on to the past is the future always passes you by and if Nikon doesn’t wake up they are on the track of experiencing a company wide Kodak moment.
Wrong. It was clearly discussed in Nikonrumor many times. It is because of F-mount, you just get wrong information.
Anthony, the fact it’s on a Rumors site doesn’t make it so. Actually, the word rumor is defined by http://www.merriam-webster.com at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rumor as
1). information or a story that is passed from person to person but has not been proven to be true
2). talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
3). a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
So what you’ve heard is just a rumor. That’s war Rumor sites specialize in, Rumors.
There is no issue with the F mount which Nikon proved long ago by besting Canon in AF. For years, nay sayers suggested Nikon couldn’t beat Canon due to the F mount. They did and continue to do so. We’ll have to agree to disagree it seems. I’m convinced Nikon’s woes are not from issues with the F mount. They go much deeper than that.
If you are looking for a small D800….. the D600? It is relatively small, and quite cheap these days. Is the only Full Frame I’d consider buying at the moment, other than Sony’s cameras.
Won’t be possible without losing the mirror(won’t be much smaller then d600). And that would mean current lenses won’t fit/work properly without a(probably big) adapter(adding bulk again).
They just won’t make the jump unless they squeezed all the money out of DSLR’s as they are now…and they still sell a lot more camera’s then mirrorless alternatives at the moment.
Not necessarily. I tried out the Nikon 1 V1 of a friend recently and was surprised by how much I liked it. The photo quality was more than good enough for online viewing, the autofocus was darned speedy, and the thing takes an FT1 adapter that lets you use large Nikkor AF lenses (which autofocuses quite speedily, too).
The V1 to me shows that if Nikon wants to make a full frame mirrorless that is backwards compatible with their lenses, including G series, they can. For some reason, they just don’t want to yet.
> shame Nikon didn’t try make the smallest/lighest D800 possible
What is the point of “smallest/lightest” camera body if all the lenses (except the 50mm) for it are the “largest/heaviest” ones?
This was already clear from the last Olympus financial report. From a corporate finance prospective, Olympus diverse businesses and its expertise in medical equipment will give them huge advantages given how developed and some developing nations are getting older. Company like Panasonic, Sony and Nikon who rely heavily on photography equipment and electronic equipment are facing lot of pressure from Korean companies.
I am no expert but aren´t Panasonic and Sony very diverse companies?
Yes, but they cant compete with things like Samsung anymore.
Your comment just makes no sense. Panasonic is going nowhere. They will always be around. The company is too broad and other companies are always willing to work with them. They could stop making cameras today, and it wouldn’t hurt them. Sure, Samsung can make a TV or a phone, but Panasonic owns Patents.
Olympus, Diverse? Are you serious? Huge advantages? Really? It’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re in a big hole, and thier camera division isn’t turning a profit. And even though they keep saying that they hope to “Break Even”, they don’t and plus they’re losing marketshare to Sony and Fuji!
Maybe you should invest in the Samsung camera and lenses. At least you know they’ll be around..
So how profitable is Fuji’s camera business?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm
Any more questions?
Fujifilm is about to become the leader in Mirrorless.
> Olympus, Diverse?
No. But medical industry as a whole is growing and Olympus is growing with it. While TV, the major revenue source for Pana and Sony, is shrinking.
They are more diverse than Nikon and which concentrates on cameras. Of course they are not as diverse as Sony and Panasonic. Sorry in this aspect I know something so don’t talk to me without numbers to back yourself up.
Panasonic as a whole has had negative net income for the last five years with last year being -10.3%. Operating profit stagnant at 2.2% for 12 quarters already. It also cut dividend last year cause they cant pay them anymore. Its investors are getting an abysmal -47% return on equity. I havent checked their segment breakdown but if the company as a whole is this bad, each segment is not doing well either.
Samsung, on the other hand, makes net income of more than 10% for the past 4 years. Their cash flow from operation and investment are both positive. In fact they have too much cash it’s bad for the business. Perhaps they should build a kid garden for you MrALLCAPS because surely you act like one.
Olympus is a cheating company, and their products are the fruit of it…
WSJ made a critical mistakes in the article:
For example Nikon was not the last photographic camera enterprise to enter the mirroless game, Canon was the last with Canon M
The other remarks are valid but exaggerated.
The Nikon entering in the medical business thing is a smart move, because the market is expanding, Nikon produces exceptionally good optics, I see no problem here. They need to have other sources of income besides photography. In this way Canon gain a lot of market share in the beginning of digital photography era, because it had founds to invest in technology, founds from other segments of the company.
I wish for no company to leave the photo/video business but for each to find a niche like Panasonic did with video. Competition is good, if only one company has the monopole the prices will be insanely high.
The WSJ didn’t say Nikon was the last. They said “among the last” and that is a factual statement. So, no critical mistake on their part. And Nikon entering the medical imaging field is going to be rough. Just as Nikon and Canon dominate the SLR market and others struggle, the medical imaging is dominated by others and Nikon will find it challenging to gain a foothold.
The D810 is certainly more interesting than the D610… Interesting though that Nikon does nothing different than Canon in regard to mirrorless cameras but Nikon´s losses are far more severe.
Ironically the D810 might still be the very best DSLR that you can buy in the foreseeable future. Nikon looses although they aren´t making any failures. I am not sure how a mirrorless D810 would have any benefits. Smaller body? Maybe, but worse handling with big lenses too. Weaker AF tracking and higher costs to design such a body.
Well if they go mirrorless they need to only handle smaller lenses, not bigger!
It’s because of no options in that arena they still need to support the behemoths.
If they would make mirrorless FF cameras, the lenses would have to be exactly the same size. Lens size is a function of image circle and brightness.
double post^^
mirrorless lens like nocticron is not that small. It’s quite as huge as nikon or canon 85/1.8.
If they would make mirrorless FF cameras, the lenses would have to be
exactly the same size. Lens size is a function of image circle and
brightness.
Yes if it’s for zoom lens. But fast FF lens like f1.8 or f.28 is relatively small. Canon or Nikon 85/1.8, for instance, are almost the same size as Nocticron. Fast F2.8 is actually light and compact.
True. Fast prime lens for FF F1.8 is quite compact and comfortable for daily use. However, FF lens like F1.4 is too huge.
Except for the Canon 50mm 1.4. It’s pretty compact imo.
ever touched one?
I believe those two lenses don’t quite compete with the Noct in terms of IQ. They are likely more equivalent to the Oly 45 1.8 which is MUCH smaller than the Canon/Nikon 85/1.8.
The Nikon 85mm F1.8g on the 16mp, 24mp or 36mp DSLRs will deliver better results than the hugely overpriced Panasonic 42.5mm. Better DOF control, higher resolution, lower distortion, much lower CA all for a fraction of the price. Remember mFT has a huge pixel density FF would need over 60mp to equal.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Leica-DG-Nocticron-42-5mm-F12-ASPH-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D610-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D800E___1297_909_823_915_823_81
Lens tests in isolation are irrelevant, all that matters is the final result which is a combination of camera plus lens Here is a test showing the 85mm F1.8g Nikon compared to the 75mm look at the actual numbers , the 85mm on the D3X has higher resolution at its lowest extreme edge score than the the 75mm at its highest center peak
The context are the quality of the lenses. This becomes a more difficult thing to quantify when talking about systems with different MP counts. You aren’t accounting for the higher pixel count which DOES make a huge difference in MTF scores. To test this, use a lens that is the EXACT same on two different formats. Go to DxO and look up the Sigma 60mm 2.8 on both the EM-1 and then on a Sony A6000 (as it is exactly the same lens just with a different mount). The EM-1 scores a sharpness of 11MP whereas the Sony scores 16MP. Would you say the Sigma lens is a better lens on the Sony? No… they are precisely the same lens, but the sensor with more pixels will resolve more detail and thus, show a higher MTF score.
Of course you are right. Let’s see what our great nano artists put up to prove you wrong, it’s always funny.
Lens size is a function of optical design, AF-motor assembly and mechanical design. With mirroless cameras you have much more freedom in optical design and you are able to make smaller lenses because of that. Of course this also depends on the focal length in the way that wide-angle lenses gets major benefits with the mirroless cameras.
Right, what you say is true. But just to reiterate… if you are picking a lens with a fast f-stop that goes over 50mm… its gonna be just about as big as the DSLR FF version.
Actually, the wide angles could be smaller, due to no need for retrofocus designs – see Leica’s wide angles. The telephotos would be the same size as SLR lenses, for the reasons you cite.
“Ironically the D810 might still be the very best DSLR that you can buy in the foreseeable future.”
Darn. Where are the Pentax fanbois when you need them?
This story must have been sitting on someone’s desk the last three years, because it’s plain out of date.
Nikon and Canon are among the top mirrorless manufacturers in most markets, ahead of Olympus. Nikon has been shipping mirrorless for what about 3 years now.
As though the number of models is more important than profitability. As though diverse product lines have anything to do with the success of a consumer camera line when other consumer lines are being dropped by the same manufacturers.
As though the Japan market is indicative of the world, the latter numbers ignored in the piece.
Canon and Nikon have barely wet their feet with mirrorless, on purpose. They don’t want to cannibalize sales of their DSLR’s. Their experimernts into mirrorless have been way overpriced failures (Nikon’s J series) or just utter failures (EOM series). Quit being an apologist and enabler for these two companies.
Nikon has actually built a respectable mirrorless system in the Nikon 1, but their pricing strategy has been crazy. I bought a V2 from Canada for $400 on closeout when the cheapest it could be gotten in the U.S. was $750. At under $500, it’s a heck of a nice camera. At $750-800, there are lots of better ones.
Failures like nano 43? I hear they sell better, even though they are toys, like nano 43 anyway.
As an accomplished “photographer” Canon and Nikon’s mirrorless camera offerings $UCK!
Hey, I have respect for the Nikon 1 series as it has insane C-AF capabilities. Still too damned overpriced though.
Exactly, overpriced is the problem. Nano four turds is also overpriced. Cut those prices, then we talk.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to talk to you? Dude, you $uck!
Told them their new camera needed 4K!
I find it interesting that the “Full Frame” camera makers are the ones dragging down the camera industry.
However, I don’t put any confidence in what the WSJ has to say. They are not even slightly interested in any photography or videography, they are ONLY interested in taking as much of our money as they possibly can.
It’s the WALL STREET Journal.
In the article they only talk about “growth” and “revenue”
+1.
That’s the bias introduced by the stock market: nobody gives a hoot about stocks which do not change price. IOW, the worst companies are the stable, working companies. Because the vultures can’t earn off them anything.
The market for medical technology is dominated by public funds and is thus quite resistant to free market fluctuations. There is little wonder companies specializing in consumer electronics are attracted to it.
If we were to rank the Japanese camera manufacturers according to their immunity, the list would pretty much reflect the weight of governments in their customer portfolio.
dn´ot project where you live onto other economys…
you are american by any chance?
i know they know nothing about the outside world and run around with blinds.
No, I am not American. As far as I know the US health system is privatized and works in close relation to the insurance business. Hence, even in America the medical equipment market would be quite predictable compared to consumer-based markets.
I was trying to write a sensible response to that load of. But given up, because you are definitely into some irrational anti-gov’t agenda.
Healthcare universally predominantly privatized. Gov’t only plays role of the regulator and the difference is only in how much regulatory control gov’t has over the industry. The funds are “public” are only in so far they are come from public, but via insurers. Gov’t isn’t even in the picture…
I once worked for a major clinical trials laboratory. virtually every microscope in the lab was made by Olympus. Nikon’s camera business is dead in the water, which is a shame because I grew up with both companies’ offerings. FM, FG, FE10, N80, D50, D700. ever since I picked up my E-PL3 and trying the E-M1 at B&H I realized the potential of MFT. Can’t wait til I get my hands on an OM-D. Nikon is an optics company first, camera second. Though they might disappear from the market, they’ll still exist in other forms.
Neither Nikon or Canon are going anywhere… their camera ecosystems have way too strong a foothold to just disappear. I see the market for Canon and Nikon evolving as such: DSLR will be strictly for the high end FF sensors that the majority of professional photographers are used to and already have a huge swath of glass for. APS-C and smaller will move to more innovative body and user interface designs and will be mirrorless.
agreed. but i think the article here is suggesting the lack of growth. one stands to wonder if Nikon’s existing base are just buying the new bodies out of habit, replacing their old ones every so often. Kind of like people who buy Honda Accords or Toyota Camrys (Canon/Nikon) over and over again and suddenly that new Mazda 6 (insert CSC here) is looking better and better over the years.
Nikon is great. The question is could they survive with just re-hashing their bodies every other year selling products that only appeal to their existing customers? But you are right. I think they are both better served just sticking with the pro-grade/pro-sumer 35mm DSLR.
The last genuinely new product, the Df as great as it looks is also a bit half-baked. needessly convoluted top plate when they could have simplified it by copying their FA or FG from back in the day if they were hell-bent on sticking with the locking dials. It makes the D600/610 the logical choice.
I agree with you that at some point… Nikon and Canon will have to get more serious about mirrorless. I just think they have the luxury that Oly/Panny don’t have in that they can wait it out a bit, milk their existing customers, then… when they feel like they can’t ignore it anymore they can take their vast resources and marketing and explode on the market.
The OMD is a fantastic Camera
but but.. it´s not only camera bodys…. what about lens sales?
Both Nikon and Canon have pointed themselves into a corner with respect to developing more useful formats, co-operation with others or shedding the antiquated mirror-box. Like their FF only flame-boys they are stuck like deer on the freeway.
> WSJ is blaming Nikon’s strategy and praising Olympus!
The market analyst might be gambling and putting pressure on Nikon stocks, hoping to buy them cheap 😉
> Nikon’s camera division, more than two-thirds of the company, posted a 9% revenue decline for the year through March.
And this is a piece of sad news. Notably missing from Nikon, as I see it, over many fences away:
– Something for videographers. It is a growing sector, no denying it and Nikon just given it away to Canon/Pana/Sony without a fight.
– Something interesting in mid-range. D5xxx series offer bit too little – but D7xxx are bit too large/heavy and still!!! no articulated LCD. As value goes, IMO only D3xxx deliver on the price/performance.
– Concentrating too much on the FX, obviously hurts marketing of the DX. I bet DX sells more than FX, yet from all what I have seen Nikon did very little to promote it. D7000 was revolutionary, yet it’s as if nothing happened since then. Nikon’s newswire is full of FX news and very few DX news.
– Successor to D300/D300s is still amiss.
Reflecting on what I wrote and comparing it to Canon, the major difference is the Canon 70D. Though it has share of problems, the camera ticked lots of boxes. And has articulated LCD. 🙂
I’d take a Nikon D5300 any day of the week over a Canon 70D! 😀
…we are second guessing here of course. Nobody could have predicted that AF of 70D would be a dud.
Nothing to do with just that, as also the Canon 70D is still using old sensor tech of T2i days. While the Nikon D5200 moved on to the cutting edge, and the D5300’s Expeed 4 built on that taking it even further.
.. or over any nano four toys.
> “Concentrating too much on the FX, obviously hurts marketing of the DX. I bet DX sells more than FX, yet from all what I have seen Nikon did very little to promote it. D7000 was revolutionary, yet it’s as if nothing happened since then. Nikon’s newswire is full of FX news and very few DX news.”
I TOTALLY AGREE! As in the APS-C market Nikon is absolutely *CRUSHING* Canon when it comes to sensor performance with the ones they’re using.
Maybe if Nikon marketed DX a bit more aggressively then they’d take away more market share from Canon.
Not only that, also the lack of support on their part on DX lenses other than needless zooms over and over hurt the system too. I am glad that Tokina and Sigma are filling that gap at least.
> “- Something for videographers. It is a growing sector, no denying it and Nikon just given it away to Canon/Pana/Sony without a fight.”
Nikon is crushing Canon too when it comes for value for money with their DSLRs for filming with. Yet sadly they’re not pushing that either :-/
http://www.eoshd.com/content/9653/nikon-d5200-review
http://www.eoshd.com/content/tag/nikon-d5200
“Canon/Pana/Sony”? You are mixing apples and oranges. Guess which one has a worm inside? It starts with “P”.
Where is the Square Box Camera Guy? No spam from him today, then? He keeps talking about a square sensor, but nothing about a square box (like a Hasselblad 500) to hold it in. I find that odd. He argues for a square sensor so that you won’t have to rotate it. So how about a square box with all the controls on a rotating ring around the body to go along with it so that it’s always upright no matter how you hold it? Ridiculous.
Although this is great news for the mirrorless market, it was going very badly for a long time, and a few months of decent sales won’t make it all right.
Let’s hope the innovation going on a Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Fuji pays off in the long run. At Canikon there is nothing happening at all.
Until Photokina that is. Canon’s new sensor technology rumor could be competitive and who knows….they’re bound to jump on the mirrorless wagon at some point.
Indeed. Canon and Nikon will eventually have to move into the mirrorless market more seriously in the next few years. They have the resources to have a huge launch for a new system, complete with real physical advertising and product space and a bunch of lenses all ready to go. They are probably just waiting for the tech to get more resolved and to milk their already established product lines a bit longer.
You know what else I don’t see coming? The 40-150mm. Where is it?
lol
It was officially announced for 2nd half of 2014, if I remember correctly. That is the pro version and would be much larger.
I have the increadibly cheap 40-150mm and that lenses surprises me still for its above average performance…
It took me about an hour playing with my new E-M1 to come to the epiphany that SLR is dying. There are so many ways that mirrorless makes more sense. Right now, people are buying them because they are smaller, but once the technology and competition are more mature, they will buy them because they are better. It just doesn’t make sense in the 21st century to have a large moving mirror inside a camera.
Using the EM1 feels like the future. I know that sounds lame, but it’s true. The implementation of the touch screen for focus, the EVF, the brilliant use of the WiFi feature and the customization is amazing. IQ is amazing and the video capabilities are surprisingly good. Oh, and the IBIS is killer and the reason I switched from Nikon and Fuji to Olympus. it’s a great system that works for me. Peace out.
I dumped ALL my Nikon equipment last summer.I now use a Olympus OMD EM5 and Olympus EPM-2.The Olympus OMD EM5 is the best camera I have owned in 30 years
I practically did the same back in 2012, no regrets at all. Glad you are enjoying the system as much as I do.
I’m getting there slowly. I still have a Canon 5D for work and EOS-M for video, but it has been staying in the bag more often than not this year. Even more so after I just acquired a secondhand EM5. I might retire the 5D this year eventually. Still dithering on replacing the EOS-M with a GH4, we’ll see.
Though the E-M5 was an excellent camera at launch, it has come of age compared to the competition.
Truly I like mine too for its easy handling, but I would like more control for video and much better video quality when there are lots of details (moire, and lots of it).
I saw this coming clear back in March 2010 when I wrote about my first experience with the Lumix GF1. http://www.naturalexposures.com/page/8/?s=Panasonic I’ve been suggesting, throughout my Blog posts ever since, that Nikon and Canon were hiding their heads in the sand and hoping this mirrorless stuff would all go away. Nikon and Canon have the ability to DOMINATE this market if they ever wake up and decide to do so. That said, the clock is ticking and it may already be too late. I’m already heavily invested in Panasonic with still some Nikon gear for specail projects. Panasonic is hardly mentioned compared to Olympus but the Lumix line far superior in ease of use and superior handling. For my thoughts on Olympus you can see more at http://www.naturalexposures.com/olympus-om-d-em-1-a-very-short-review/
I totally agree with you Daniel. Canon and Nikon could still create a killer mirrorless system, but it will take time to mature it. Olympus/Panasonic would benefit from Nikon/Canon getting into mirrorless because much press would then be given to Oly and Pany when comparing them. We’ll see. it’s a great time to be a photographer, these tools we have at our disposal are amazing!
It was amazing to read this while sitting next to a GH4 after using a GF2 for so many years.
Agreed most part but micro is not that one to dominate stills , it is the Alpha FE. What all of us want from Pana is fullframe gh4
Are you in the habit of appointing yourself to be the unofficial spokesperson of your chess club, too? Stuff your FF Panasonic. I’m happy with the current sensor and lens sizes and have been ever since I got my G1 and later GF1.
Why don’t you get a compact cam then? The results are the same and it is a lot cheaper.
I am not saying Panasonic to replace m43 with ff but give us ff gh in addition to the great gh4.
“What all of us want from Pana is fullframe gh4” …..
Actually, NO . . . We don’t all want the same thing. You don’t speak for anyone here as you have made it plain that you hate m4/3, while most here are completely sold on m4/3. Why should Panasonic take a HUGE step backwards into the stone-ages to mimic a system which is looking moribund?
What all of us want is more m4/3. What you want is to sew seeds of strife and discord.
CaNikon for few years now were pushing 135 format cameras. And it doesn’t seem to be doing much good for them.
Why Sony FE should fare better? Camera might be smaller – but the lenses are the same as before and dominate the body. In fact, smallness becomes a disadvantage: the A7 cameras don’t have enough grip to support 2.8/70-200 lens.
To me personally it is all about lens size and “good enough” IQ. Many reviewers seem to be arriving to the same conclusion: right now, MFT is the sweet spot of IQ vs. rig size.
P.S. Also, after reading/watching a number of FF camera hands-on and reviews, I get impression that many who get into the FF have the SUV mentality. They buy camera which has all possible bells and whistles, then put 50mm on it and go street shooting. The street shooting which for larger part can be already done easily even with a smartphone. The overkill camera is there only for the “peace of mind”.
Does Steve Huff agree with you?
You mentioned superior twice and that is really hard to claim, and makes more for an advertisement stunt.
If it were really so than Steve Huff would have found it out many years already which is not the case. Truly Olympus can improve on their menu system though.
What Panasonic camera would be superior than my e-m5 during the same year of launch with the same control like dials?
Anyhow this Sony A7 is quite interesting for maybe new photo gear before next years summer vacation
DingieM,
Steve has a large following but he’s not the only shooter out there. I tend to follow those who have a long track record of actually being published. People who have worked hard in the traditional publishing world and have publications from successful, well known magazines. The internet has it’s place but ANYBODY can publish their own work on the internet, including me! Does that make me an authority? Not really. It just makes me a person with an opinion that now has my own publishing tool, my Blog.
This is nothing against Steve Huff. I love his work and his web presence and for all I know, he does have a deep history of traditional publishing. It’s just not listed on his web site from what I can find. I personally would have never brought a particular person’s name up but that’s something you chose to do.
This is all a bit off topic but I felt it necessary to add some foundation since it started with your suggestion I don’t know what I’m talking about because Steve Huff has a larger following. His following may be larger but I know a camera that can make me money when I see one. And to that end I stand by my comments about the Panasonic Lumix gear I mention above.
For anyone who may be interested in seeing more of what I do you can do that by visiting my web site. You can then make your own decision regarding my qualifications:-) http://naturalexposures.com/portfolio/published-works/
One inaccuracy in the WSJ story: Nikon has long had more than a toehold in the medical field due to its microscopes, which it was selling well before it made cameras. It’s a logical expansion for them to increase their medical imaging business.
Nikon medical group is too weak to even be called competitive, nothing like Oly’s endoscope business. So as whole company goes Oly is in way better shape than Nikon.
Nikon was also a large competitor to ASML for many years but have lost it completely. Not good because ASML is an arrogant lithography machine maker. Competition is needed.
Nikon are too busy kissing the mirror to notice.
You didn’t have to see it coming- it’s been pretty obvious for the past few years. Olympus and Panasonic are more in tune with what consumers want. I have a lot of friends who are adopting the platform after my experience. Point is- most of us are oversold on what we need. Time to focus on what really matters- making cameras that make photography a joy and not a burden. Less weight, more useful features. I use my M43’rds more than my full frame gear despite having a lot of higher end Zeiss glass. I like it that much.
Consider :
How much of that bump in mirror-less can be attributed to Sony A7/A6000 and Fuji X series over m4/3 ? There would need to be a break down by format. Hardly much praise for Oly here.
Olympus is the leader in Market Share for mirrorless cameras. Sony is 2nd, Panasonic is 3rd, Nikon is 4th, Fujifilm 5th, and Samsung 6th.
BS, in fact Sony is the no one world wide, and eos m is doing much better than you think it is. For stills use, the sensor size is important.
Wishful thinking?
Counter your claim with market data, if not, you are a fool
Sorry my fingers were a bit too fat for iPhone, so I made a couple of typos.
And a7
WSJ? And who is that? I praise Nikon strategy of making proper cameras, I blame Olympus’ strategy on making overpriced toys. And Panasonic should stick to hoovers.
Pana is doing fine and seems to know for what micro system is great , so it got out the great gx7 and gh4. The pronlem here is the stupid wannabe retro Olympus .
Don’t forget the GM1 (maybe for another kind of customer, but pretty awsome for what it is)
50 MS Flash sync speed? no manual controls? It’s just another toy. GX7 may be quite good but it costs a grand in EUR, 400 would be more like it.
The flash sync is crap but the manual controls are all there (press up and rotate wheel for aperture, press up again and rotate wheel for shutter speed)
If you actually consult in the real world, nobody would take your advice lest pay for it.
Maybe you should use one identity instead of trying to flood this website with uninteresting and quite idiotic statements.
HAHA you mean Mini Four Thirds has gone from 3 to 4 users worldwide. (Stick to corporate fraud, Olympus, that’s all your good at)(stick to making vacuums, Panasonic, that’s all you’re good at).
Input noted. No need to create multiple identities.
Edward, take a deep breath. This isn’t about curing cancer. It’s about having fun again with photography. Olympus and Panasoinc have done a great job of thinking out of the box and because of that they are making huge inroads on the traditional DSLR’s. No need to get bent out of shape. You just need to adapt to change. We’ll all benefit with more competition in the market and Panasonic and Olympus are all over the competition thing.
Well Olympus is primarily a medical company not a camera main and most of Oly shareholders do not like m43 business of it.
It’s odd that Nikon haven’t introduced either a D400 or a D7200. Either of these would spark interest in a market wondering what they’re doing.
Actually you should worry about the future of micro not Nikon or canon. No rational persons shoot micro if their main work is stills. To me micro is a great video system but not a good enough stills system. For stills we need at least fullframe better medium format.
We need? You’re welcome to speak for yourself, but I’m sure others are doing just fine.
While I find the lack of great lenses for micro Four-Thirds a problem, I have my Four-Thirds lenses to use.
If I wanted to photograph weddings, I’d be using 135 Format, such as the new Nikon D810, but I don’t want to photograph weddings. For anything else, APS-C or micro Four-Thirds is just fine, even on large prints. I’ve considered moving to Nikon for my sports business, but they won’t replace the D300s (now dead) or the D7100 with a proper model.
don’t bother upgrading to 135, it’s not for you. But why don’t you get a compact cam instead? It’s a lot cheaper and the results are the same.
135 Format gets the same results as a compact camera? Thanks for the tip!
M.zd 75mm, m.zd 45mm, m.zd 12mm m.zd 12-40mm pro, these are lenses with excellent optics. Beyond that, there are excellent lenses from Panasonic.
High grade zoom lenses are on their way too.
So, m43 is actually almost drowning in very good lenses
I guess it depends on how low your tolerance is. The 12-40mm works very well, and the 75mm is very good. The rest are so-so and rely on a lot of fixes, especially the Panasonic lenses.
Who is “we”? There are quite many examples by now, how full time photographers change to m43 or other mirrorless. IQ of m43 is enough for quite large prints, 20×30 look really good. So any magazine or book is no problem.
The IQ advantage of FF is rather small in real life, even when pixel peeping actually. Real advantage of FF is lens selection, especially such things as T/S lenses, telephoto, macro to some extent.
quite many? really? which many?
Search this website for past articles. There are many more on the Internet.
Wee, my Lord? Is one referring to one’s willy?
Of course, but this is a marketing forum, you cannot say that.
Thats a stupid trolling statement. You know there are many examples that counter your strange claim.
Anyhow your post is utterly useless
Guys perhaps you didn’t notice that the only camera divisions actually making a profit belong to Canon & Nikon .All the big mirrorless players have been losing money hand over fist have you not seen the losses ?
The mirrorless players make up the loses on volume
Sony too
I think a lot of the people criticizing this release have completely missed the point. Nikon themselves have said that this is not supposed to be a revolutionary step forward. This is just a mid-cycle evolution. This isn’t the camera that all the D800 owners are going to rush out and buy as an update. This is the camera that people who are considering upgrading from a D7000/D300/D700/D3 will be looking to buy.
I also think many people are failing to recognize one of the ways that Nikon is setting themselves up for the future: The 1 system focusing system. Despite all of the 1 system’s drawbacks, Nikon has successfully developed the best mirrorless focusing to date. If and when Nikon someday releases a more serious mirrorless system, they’ll have a pretty big advantage in their focusing system, which is probably the single biggest area mirrorless cameras are lagging behind DSLRs.
I like my E-M5 for the electronic viewer and the dials for increased handling. Every time I need those badly when shooting photo’s. No matter how good a display can be, with even average sun light the readability of the display deteriorates immensely. At those moments I can not trust if I made a good picture.
So in my eyes when mirrorless systems wants to fully replace DSLR’s, they need good handling facilities, give on-par image quality and have responsive handling (processing speed). Focussing already matches and surpasses DSLR’s.
Focusing only surpasses DSLRs in live view. There are no mirrorless cameras that can match the speed and accuracy of pro-level DSLRs like 1D X and D4s, especially for continuous focus and subject tracking. Just use one of those to shoot sports, and then switch to an E-M1, X-T1, GH4 or A6000, and you’ll notice the drop in the number of ‘keepers’.
It’s only for subject tracking, single focus is already more accurate and as fast. PDAF is simply not precise enough and needs lots of fine tuning.
No, it’s not just for subject tracking. It’s for continuous servo and subject tracking, both of which are extremely important. And I’d like to see where you get the idea that mirrorless cameras are more accurate than DSLRs in live view. They might be marginally faster, but in my experience with Nikon DSLRs, they are extremely accurate in Live View. With my OM-D the keeper rate with C-AF was so low that, in my opinion, Olympus shouldn’t even be able to claim the camera has that function.
With my DSLRs I rely on back-button focusing with continuous AF. I absolutely CANNOT do that with any mirrorless camera I’ve tried.
I’m sorry but you’re just wrong about the focusing speed. If you’re talking about single servo AF, then mirrorless is almost on par in terms of speed. But if you’re talking about continuous servo and tracking, mirrorless cameras still have a long way to go. I shoot with a D800 and an OM-D EM-5, and I have tried a lot of other cameras (including the EM-1, GX7, XT-1, and many DSLRs from Nikon and Canon) and I can tell you none of the mirrorless cameras’ focusing systems can compete with the C-AF of even mid-range SLRs in any light.
I did not see that coming? Maybe, but I don’t care anyway. Toy manufacturers will be toy manufacturers.
The WSJ got one fact wrong, I believe Nikon’s camera division is 4/3s of the company.
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2014/04/hey-canon-you-might-not-be-future-of.html
Nikon needs money to pay for the stupendess and obvious trollers on the 43rumors website.
Seems a bit strange to criticise Nikon for only offering a handful of mirrorless models. Let’s take a look at the current models from the different manufacturers:
Canon: EOS M2
Fujifilm: X-A1, X-M1, X-E2, X-T1, X-Pro1
JK Imaging: Kodak S-1
Leica: T, M-E, M, M-Monochrom
Nikon: S2, J4, AW1, V3
Olympus: E-PM2, E-PL5/6, E-P5, E-M10, E-M5, E-M1
Panasonic: GF6, GM1, G6, GX7, GH4
Ricoh: Pentax Q7 (K-01 and GXR are both discontinued)
Samsung: NX mini, NX3000, NX300, NX30, Galaxy NX
Sony: A3000, A5000, A6000, A7, A7R, A7S
Nikon is by no means worst in class, and do we really need 5-6 models from the same manufacturer? I don’t think so.
I saw it comming, Just look at their stocks