Nikon Restructure

Nikon restructuring? Don't know if this is a bad or good thing.

http://petapixel.com …ess-prompt-restructuring/

Nikon has no choice. Cameras are their main business, and compact cameras and other small-sensor cameras are dying because of camera phones. To keep making money in cameras, they need to concentrate exclusively on larger, interchangeable-lens models, both mirrorless and SLR, as well as video.

Canon doesn't have the same problem, because it isn't primarily a camera company. The camera division isn't even its most profitable - it's taken exactly the same dive that Nikon has. Just that Canon has photocopiers, printers, laboratory equipment and other divisions holding it up.

It is troubling times for camera manufacturers right now. And the steel bath with continue, since the market will shrink. So less market to share between all involved companies.

Camera markets are shrinking (not counting phones as being cameras).

But digital sensor markets are bigger than ever before, and growing every year.

These days, almost everything has some sort of imaging device in it, from doorbells to cars to fingerprint scanners. The small sensors still have a place. But that place isn't in cameras.

Meanwhile, cameras will go back to what they were before digital photography - tools for professionals and enthusiasts trying to get the best image quality they can, rather than fashion accessories used mostly for taking selfies or snapshots. IMO this is a good thing - hopefully, it leads to better products and more products aimed at higher-end users, rather than an endless series of Rebels and various gimmicks designed to appeal to novices and non-photographers, but which higher-end users have little use for. Makes them concentrate on the substance of the camera system, not the colour of the casing or the advertising.

I guess Canon moving towards the video side is a bit of diversification that Nikon does not have.
Tough days ahead for Nikon.

Nikon talks about stable expansion. But doesn't mention how.

Can't happen through any growing market.
So they must be convinced they will take market shares.
Or they must plan to move into other markets.
Or they may just hope people will not notice the trouble with that 'stable expansion' part.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16913121
Camera markets are shrinking (not counting phones as being cameras).

But digital sensor markets are bigger than ever before, and growing every year.

These days, almost everything has some sort of imaging device in it, from doorbells to cars to fingerprint scanners. The small sensors still have a place. But that place isn't in cameras.

Meanwhile, cameras will go back to what they were before digital photography - tools for professionals and enthusiasts trying to get the best image quality they can, rather than fashion accessories used mostly for taking selfies or snapshots. IMO this is a good thing - hopefully, it leads to better products and more products aimed at higher-end users, rather than an endless series of Rebels and various gimmicks designed to appeal to novices and non-photographers, but which higher-end users have little use for. Makes them concentrate on the substance of the camera system, not the colour of the casing or the advertising.

The majority of the world will use small sensors. Small sensors means small lenses.

Small sensors in small web cams.
Small sensors in small guard cameras.
Small sensors in mobile phones.
Small sensors in car dashboard cameras.
...

Not too many see any advantage of a large sensor. Most times where high ISO would be good, they instead go for IR to light up the scene because that is cheaper in combination with a nice zoom lens of much shorter focal length. Lots of new IR solutions uses totally invisible light so you can't see that the guard cameras lights up the surroundings.

And no - this is not a good thing. Because the companies have come accustomed to making money. They will continue to want to make money. But from much fewer sold units. So they will want much more money for each sold unit instead. There can just be a short period where there is a price war that may be good for the customers. But after that war ends, the remaining companies and the remaining offerings will not represent any good choices for us customers, unless some totally new company manages to invent some magnificent new concept making them able to walk all over the competition - but even then only good for us customers for a short while until they have cornered the market.

pwm2 wrote in post #16913188
The majority of the world will use small sensors. Small sensors means small lenses.

Small sensors in small web cams.
Small sensors in small guard cameras.
Small sensors in mobile phones.
Small sensors in car dashboard cameras.

That's what I'm saying. Small, point-and-shoot type sensors aren't going anywhere. They'll continue to be used in all sorts of things. Just not cameras designed for photography.

Hence, the main application for large sensors will be those where image quality matters - photography, video and some scientific applications.

That's actually a very good thing. If dedicated still cameras (and dedicated video cameras) become tools used by photographers instead of playthings for the public who just want to take snapshots and family photos, then camera/lens features and releases will be aimed at photographers and enthusiasts, instead of the general public. This means more solid features (proper AF, weather sealing, sensor improvements) in bodies and fewer gimmicks. Lens releases, similarly, would be more about maximising image quality rather than minimising price. There will still be competition - Canon, Nikon, Sony and others are not about to start dealing knockout blows to each other.

You really think it will be a good thing to have a market where the cameras will either be very much more expensive to keep up up the total sales value from a very small number of sold units, or where there are hardly any innovation because the majority of players have left the market?

I'm sorry but I think you have a much too positive view on this. Look at the prices of dedicated video broadcast equipment.

The R&D costs will not go down just because the number of customers decreases. The startup costs for the factories will not really go down even if only half as large production capacity is needed.

While the concepts involved in a modern camera is trivial, the actual software used is far from trivial.

I think you'll end up with a "google-cam" with hobby-class replaceable modules. Or professional bodies with Hasselblad prices - and with a glacial development speed. Why invest in a new sensor if you can't make more money?

pwm2 wrote in post #16914246
You really think it will be a good thing to have a market where the cameras will either be very much more expensive to keep up up the total sales value from a very small number of sold units, or where there are hardly any innovation because the majority of players have left the market?

I'm sorry but I think you have a much too positive view on this. Look at the prices of dedicated video broadcast equipment.

The R&D costs will not go down just because the number of customers decreases. The startup costs for the factories will not really go down even if only half as large production capacity is needed.

While the concepts involved in a modern camera is trivial, the actual software used is far from trivial.

I think you'll end up with a "google-cam" with hobby-class replaceable modules. Or professional bodies with Hasselblad prices - and with a glacial development speed. Why invest in a new sensor if you can't make more money?

The thing is, full-frame cameras already are a professionals- and enthusiasts-only domain. Novices and non-photographers almost universally buy crop bodies. The number of people buying full-frame bodies and their lenses isn't going to decrease. So, their price will stay the same.

It's the crop bodies, point-and-shoots and other low-end cameras which will disappear.

Development speed for full-frame sensors, if anything, will accelerate because of the loss of the low end. No entry-level cameras means that, if you're going to sell cameras, you need to concentrate on the 5D3/D800/1D/D4 and large-sensor mirrorless lines. The customers for these lines will still be there - just that the customers for D5300, Rebel and point-and-shoot cameras will be gone. If anything, the customer base for these cameras will be even larger, since higher-resolution displays are becoming more and more common and bandwidth is always increasing. But these customers won't be in a hurry to replace lenses or bodies unless the updates are substantial. A new casing of white plastic might impress Rebel users, but they won't suck in any 5D-series buyers with such gimmicks.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16914274
The thing is, full-frame cameras already are a professionals- and enthusiasts-only domain. Novices and non-photographers almost universally buy crop bodies. The number of people buying full-frame bodies and their lenses isn't going to decrease. So, their price will stay the same.

That is a big mistake on your side. You are forgetting that lots of the R&D spent on new full-format pro bodies comes from the profit of crop bodies. That is okay because the manufacturer will trickle much of the functionality down to the crop bodies. And in some situations, it's the crop bodies that might introduce some functionality that then ends up in the pro bodies after having been proven valuable.

People constantly totally forgets that the R&D work done is based on constantly looking for synergy effects and spreading the costs. The DiG!C chips are used in pro bodies, and cheap bodies and P&S and in video. Reduce the number of cameras containing DiG!C chips, and the R&D and manufacturing costs per chip will drastically increase. Same with sensor development - it matters how many bodies of different sensor sizes that will be sold and can share the R&D costs involved.

In the end, it's critically vital to look at the sales of lower end gear and realize how much that affects the costs and the amount of money spent on innovation for higher-end gear.

With much less money flowing around, the pro bodies will get very long life cycles and very few improvements. And many of the life cycle changes will be related to components going end-of-life requiring the release of revision 2, revision 3, ... of the same body.

And that means the money to drive the development will go away. The pro bodies will have to become much more expensive to carry their own costs and still give a profit. And profit is the only reason for the camera manufacturers to develop and sell camera gear. They aren't just bored and doing it to keep occupied. Or to be nice or because they think the world just needs some free cameras.

Have you really seen that result in other markets? The speed of progress tends to follow the total amount of money to fight for. There is an explosive development of mobile phones just because there is such a big market to fight for. Which means that the investers - the share holders - are interested in their companies to grow and make them more money. You, as a photographer, doesn't make them rich. You need to find a huge number of friends to collect enough money to make it worth it for them.

Concentrate on them. And concentrating on requesting a very big bill for them. And see if there are any competitors ready to fight or if it's ok to wait 5 years before starting to even consider a replacement model.

We already have cameras that manages the resolution of a 4k display. And in good light, a mobile phone manages nice photos for a 4k display. The customers for the full-frame bodies will be there. But have to pay Hasselblad prices.

Substantial improvements tends to require substantial investments. Lots of companies regularly decides to not make substantial investments because they find that they can get a larger gain from investing in a different market. In short - why should any camera company care about supplying you with a newer camera if they think the camera has to be so expensive that you will not want to pay the price?

In the end, you just can not avoid the fact that a loss of volume is bad for you. And for me. And for every other photographer. That isn't a "maybe". That's a hard reality. You just have to spend some time thinking about it. But you will not see shelves filled with magical new camera designs as the outcome of the loss of the majority of the sales volume. The digital cameras have had their renaissance. Now comes the cold, hard, times with a short and intensive fight for survival and then a slowdown on invention for the survivor(s).

Shadowblade wrote in post #16913073
Nikon has no choice. Cameras are their main business, and compact cameras and other small-sensor cameras are dying because of camera phones. To keep making money in cameras, they need to concentrate exclusively on larger, interchangeable-lens models, both mirrorless and SLR, as well as video.

Canon doesn't have the same problem, because it isn't primarily a camera company. The camera division isn't even its most profitable - it's taken exactly the same dive that Nikon has. Just that Canon has photocopiers, printers, laboratory equipment and other divisions holding it up.

Nikon isn't just a camera company.

http://www.nikon.com/

Nikon and Canon compete for the same business in many arenas though I have never seen a consumer grade printer from Nikon. They are focused on imaging products.

The digital camera market has been riding a bubble for over a decade. For a while, the accessibility of digital vs. film has meant a HUGE bubble, with sales FAR surpassing , nay exponentially multiplying what these companies ever saw back in film days.

For them, they are lucky that the digital bubble did not simply burst. Instead, it's just been a inconsistent, herky jerky deflation. Much more time to adjust to the writing on the wall.

jetcode wrote in post #16917112
Nikon isn't just a camera company.

http://www.nikon.com/

Nikon and Canon compete for the same business in many arenas though I have never seen a consumer grade printer from Nikon. They are focused on imaging products.

This is true, however to be clear, that was not what shadowblade said either. "Primarily" and "main business" did not imply "just a camera company" to me.

Thankfully, Nikon has found a solution. Mentioned at the end of this article, I have to applaud Sony for their innovative approach to reducing labor costs.

http://newcameranews.c​om …names-ashton-kutcher-ceo/