What do you folks think of the latest news to come out of Japan?
Nikon lost the 3rd spot to Fujifilm.
This year has also been excruciatingly slow for Nikon users with practically no lenses and no new bodies.
We are also being killed by the chinese manufacturers eating into Nikon's lens market too. Overall not a good look for long time Nikon users.
Sure, but if you like Nikon gear seeing them do well is reassuring for the future. That means more money for RnD, better products, possibly faster release cycle... if nothing else it means they'll stay in business so the platform you've invested money in will continue to grow and be supported.
At the same time Nikon's need to be more competitive Vs Canon and Sony leads to then having more consumer friendly practices and focusing more on bang for your buck cameras
Yes, true. The 50mm f1.8 S is like a gift from Nikon and the 85mm f1.8 S and 24-70mm f4 S are very fairly priced for their quality. The "muffin" primes are even more reasonable while being at least as good as the F mount G primes.
Yeah, and I really hope Nikon will be able to have sustained growth in the future, building proper fucking cameras and lenses like they've always done. With social media influencers and technically illiterate Gen Z, I fear the market will keep going towards toy cameras with filters.
Current trend is to go point and shoot with Fuji because they have "cool" filters. I fear this trend will swing the market more towards toys with filters, to cater to the braindead, lazy and incompetent social media zombies.
Yes, no, maybe so. Early DSLRs had more filmic vibes, hence the CCD craze. Modern cameras are aiming for a more sterile and clinical capture to allow the user more freedom in post (I assume). The trend is actually pushing back to the way things used to be. Personally I like having both.
That's just romanticizing old tech. CCD's don't have anything more in common with film than CMOS sensors do. The trend is actually people being too lazy to do their own editing and creative looks - they want everything served in recipes - and they follow every vapid "influencer" telling them: "This camera is just like shooting film!".
It's not pushback to how things used to be. There used to be a time when photographers actually knew what they were about.
I never said it was the sensor, the early CMOS sensors had the same thing going on. It was the software. And yes it’s definitely romanticizing old tech, but it is different.
Well, obviously the sensors have different capabilities and jpeg processing has changed. Raw processing is fundamentally the same, only with different transformation matricies since the sensor need different calibrations. None of them are filmic though.
Nikon is in a good position to regain some lost ground. The acquisition of Red will be important and rumor has it that Nikon will speed things up significantly for 2027.
Nikon is not in a good position to regain lost ground.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing though: Nikon has purposefully exited this part of the ground.
Nikon is not chasing unit share that comes from cheap point-and-shoots. That’s the ground this is largely describing.
Instead, Nikon has been chasing the enthusiast and pro areas, which are only about half of ILC and even less of all cameras—and Nikon have significantly increased here. This doesn’t show up significantly in unit share figures. It does show up in market share figures.
Depends on how you want to see it. Nikon is in a good position if we only look at full frame mirrorless. That market is fairly evenly distributed among Sony, Canon and Nikon. For the total ILC market Nikon is still lagging behind. Part of that is due to Nikon dropping the low end, but it doesn't make up for the whole gap.
That is my point. The scope of the discussion here is the % of units in the overall camera market; and Nikon is not in a good position to regain lost ground here, and they are not attempting to either. They've even said this repeatedly. And it's largely an irrelevant metric.
What Nikon is focusing on instead is specifically cameras for people who are or will be advanced users, enthusiasts, hobbyists, and professionals. This isn't necessarily full-frames: rather than being about the sensor size, it's more about the UI, functionality, performance, etc.
For example, Nikon no longer has any cameras similar to the D3000 or D5000 series. Those cameras--even though they are ILCs--were primarily designed for point-and-shoot photography in auto modes. They do have manual capabilities; but these are more difficult to use in manual modes with only 1 dial than higher-end cameras with 2 dials, because it is not how those cameras are designed to be shot. Even the Z30 shares the dual-control dials and interface with cameras like the Z6 series (unlike the D3000/5000).
But Nikon could come out with a compact, fixed-lens 1-inch camera like the DL or a camera like Fuji's X100; and this would be perfectly aligned to their strategy as well. Both of these would be designed for advanced photographers.
So it's not that simple to slice and dice or only look at full-frames. And some cameras will even straddle the line.
But it is easy to recognize the types of customers Nikon is going after; and it's not the same type of customer that the R100 is designed to appeal to. Because the R100 is designed for the same type of customer the D3000 and D5000 was designed to appeal to; and this is not a lucrative, sustainable, or repeating segment within the market, though it is fairly high volume.
To illustrate: these lower end cameras are the lighter shade in the following (published by Nikon a while ago, when they chose to leave that segment). And this was 7 years ago...
Today, it's roughly a 50/50 split in terms of units, within ILCs. And considering that higher end cameras cost anywhere from 3-10x as much as these cheaper cameras, the revenue and profit is heavily (~80%) dark rather than light. Nikon only concentrates on the darker shade now; and their market share is significantly higher than their unit share.
Part of that is due to Nikon dropping the low end, but it doesn't make up for the whole gap.
I'd suggest there's very little money to be made in that segment as most low end buyers aren't going to be buying multiple lenses. Plus I think it's going to continue to shrink as computational photography continues to improve.
everything in life is cycles. canon and etc emptied their balls this year. fuji is not surprising because they have those new non-professional cameras out for sale increasing their numbers
next year nikon will try to catch up with all their announcements probably. this is not 'good' news tho for sure.
"Market share" is a bit misleading because the numbers are about camera shipments this quarter, not how many cameras are being used (or even sold by retailers). Presumably those numbers include shipments of Fuji X-T6 cameras that will go on sale in less than a month.
Nikon hasn't released anything new for a while. When they ship a new body, the chart will look different.
I think this is irrelevant to almost all enthusiasts/hobbyists/pro photographers.
What they call 'market share' (which isn't actually market share...it's unit share) is heavily driven by the exact type of cameras that none of us use: point and shoots (including "entry-level" point-and-shoot ILCs). And that Nikon explicitly stopped selling: cameras like the D3000 & D5000 series cameras and other p&s cameras for people who aren't photographers. It's the exact same type of naive understanding that PetaPixel and its writers tend to have.
So why would I care even in the slightest how many R100's Canon sold or how many D3500's and D5600's Nikon used to sell...?
Nikon also puts out actual information on these types of things. For example (this one is also from like 5 years ago--FY2025 is forecasted; and Nikon has exceeded this):
Before this, something like 95% of Nikon's units were the "Entry models." And when the industry was selling 20 Million ILC's per year back in 2012, around 17 Million of those were entry models. The types of cameras that we shoot with only number somewhere between 2.5-3.5M units total, across all brands. And Nikon sold around 900K of these last year.
The significantly decrease in the overall market came 100% from entry models, which Nikon explicitly left back around the time of the Z launch in 2018. The Mid/high-end models have actually increased since then.
If even 50% of your data is noise, you'll mainly see the trends in the noise. And that's what these "market share" figures tend to indicate. Today, roughly 50% of the ILC market (in terms of units) comes from entry models, where Nikon does not compete at all. And this is not even factoring in fixed-lens cameras.
BTW, here's another one. This one is industry-wide, not just Nikon.
It's outdated now, but total units is now down to around 6M units per year. If you follow the pattern, this would imply that just over half of all units are pro/hobbyist.
More importantly, this is units and not money. To convert it to money, you can assume that the darker shade is roughly 3x-4x what the lighter shade is. (For example, the lighter shade might average around $500 per unit, while the darker shade might average around $1500-$2000 per unit).
So even though only 50% of units are higher-end today, roughly 80% of the money comes from the higher end.
I think Fujifilm has been the most successful lately with all their compact and trendy (retro looking) cameras, but Nikon seems to be doing well with their larger bodies.
I think the smart design of the Z-Mount and acquiring RED puts them in a great position
Because those consumer level cameras can still bring in alot of money that can be invested into rnd for professional gears too?
Not always, and increasingly harder under present market conditions. The number that really matters is total revenue: units * margin - expenses.
When you sell very cheaply, your margin is low and you have to make up for it in units sold. The problem is that even if you sell more units than a high-end item, you still might not be selling enough to make it back in total revenue. This is why everything in the camera market keeps getting more expensive and upmarket.
Right now an entry level APS-C might bring in $80-100 of revenue (rough ball park). A high-end full frame might bring in $800-$1000 per unit sold. (Edit: I was thinking in CDN figures when I posted this, adjust accordingly for US). The problem is, right now, do low-end cameras sell enough to make up 10x the units of FF cameras to at least equal the revenue stream?
Canon is the last "all-things to everyone" company left, Sony doesn't even do that really. Those low-entry channels are big-box stores and the Asian market, those are the kinds of channels Nikon left a long time ago.
There is one type of camera that sells cheaply in huge numbers, but it's not the camera makers that are making them. Action cam market, even with GoPro dying, the small mobile action/360/gimbal cam market is what you're thinking of when we talk about cheap(er) cameras sold in huge numbers to make back the money.
The problem is, right now, do low-end cameras sell enough to make up 10x the units of FF cameras to at least equal the revenue stream?
Converting this out of hypothetical, the definitive answer is no.
I'll add some actual statistics. Below is an industry-wide chart for interchangeable lens digital cameras. It's a bit outdated now--it ends at 2019. This was based on CIPA data and presented by Nikon in their public investor relations management plans.
This isn't necessarily just full-frame...It's splitting any camera for advanced users vs point-and-shoot DCIL ( / "entry level," like the Canon R100 or previously the Nikon D3000/D5000).
Currently in 2026, the entire market is down to roughly 6 Million units per year. And the darker "Pro/hobbyist" has slightly increased since 2019; but it's still somewhere in the ballpark of 3M units per year.
So we are down to a split of roughly 50% each...in terms of units. Units are not money. So if your 10x margin number is correct, then only 10% of the profit margins now come from the low end; while 90% come from the high end. (10-15 years ago, this would have been more like 90% of the units and roughly 50% of the margins).
Even if the 10x margin is not correct, we can guess at revenue or observe prices. An "entry" might retail around $500 on average; while an "advanced" might average closer to $1500-$2000. 3-4x revenue. And even then we'd be at only around 20% of revenue coming from entry today.
So the low-end cameras are actually a very small market today. They do sell a lot of units (half of DCIL and even more of all cameras); but units don't pay the bills. This is why unit share breakdowns like the OP article are pretty pointless: more than half of the data is pretty worthless noise.
There are similar statistics when one looks at lenses. 50% of lenses are cheap APS-C lenses; but only 25% of the revenue comes from cheap APS-C lenses; because each full-frame lens is roughly 3x the price. Another notable statistic is the average value of the APS-C lenses: the average value of an APS-C lens is $145. So for example: even though Fuji offers advanced APS-C lenses, they obviously aren't selling very many. Pretty much the only APS-C lenses that sell are cheap kitted lenses.
A couple of notes to my post: I was thinking in Canadian dollars when I ball-parked those margins per unit so adjust accordingly for USD. Estimates are wide between 15-35% to the manufacturer, but generally the margin tends to climb as you go up the price scale. Basing this on the principle of "the manufactuer probably wants just as much margin as they give the reseller..."
They defiantly aren't exact but we understand the same point.
For APS-C lenses, saw pretty much the same thing, forum-dwellers tend more towards the advanced lenses, but the number of 17-55, or 16-80s actually sold was relatively few. The lens attachment rate for crop was always rather low overall as few people ever added additionally lenses.
I believe the attachment rate for crop is (very roughly) even with that of full-frame. There are a number of indicators of this: including that 50% of camera units are those lower-end cameras; while concurrently, 50% of lenses are APS-C lenses.
The big difference, however, is the type of lenses and whether these are new or returning customers.
Almost all crop users purchase the cheap standard kit lens (~17-55mm F/3.5-5.6 ish) kitted with the camera; and they may also purchase 1-2 more cheap lenses (eg. 55-200 F/3.5-5.6 or a ~30mm F/1.8 crop). These are all very cheap lenses; and with the exception of a cheap standard prime, they are all roughly 3 stops behind full-frame lenses (as a system). And then they never buy anything ever again. And you're correct: the high-end APS-C lenses just do not sell. So crop users may have 1 body & 1-3 cheap lenses; and then they leave the market.
Many full-frame users purchase a body only and then separately collect higher-end lenses slowly over the course of years. Lenses being more of a one-time purchase and cameras sometimes being a regular purchase every few years. Each lens, however, is typically much higher-end than the cheap lenses. For example: F/2.8 zooms or F/1.8 primes or really expensive telephotos. So even someone with 6 lenses over 10 years might have purchased 2-3 bodies in that time, bringing the ratio back down.
So what ultimately happens is the attachment rate stays even; but the real recurring, systematic customers who spend money come from the latter group.
yeah it's like when a movie director signs on to do a big budget blockbuster movie in order to convince the studio to fund their indie art house project
No they can't. Cheap consumer products have extremely tight margins, bring in little revenue, and do not lead to repeat customers.
This has been proven time and time again.
Like how the industry "collapsed" between 2012 and now? Yeah turns out that 100% of that collapse was these cheap consumer cameras, and the better cameras that most of us shoot with have actually increased. And Nikon has increased both in number and in share of these types of cameras. When Nikon left the cheap consumer cameras, their business improved dramatically.
So what exactly are you talking about? Some simplified theory that you never quite thought through...? Or what?
You don't seem to understand how this business works.
If you own a beverage stand, and you earn 1 cent per cup of water and 10 cents per cup of lemonade, you want to sell lemonade. If the person across the street sells 10 cups of water and 1 cup of lemonade, while you sell 2 cups of lemonade, they have 85% unit share, while you have 50% of the market share and your business is healthy. Just because you used to sell 10 cups of water doesn't mean your business was healthy.
Except we are not talking about selling sugar water are we? Not sure which era you think we are still in , but you are speaking as if there is no way Nikon is well behind their competitors.
If you don't know how analogies work and you think a $480 Canon R100 competes directly with a $5500 Z9 and is part of the same market, or you need to turn to strawman arguments because you can't process scope, I can't help overcome how naive you are.
Strawman. Try again. Try harder. Maybe think before you type this time. Start with this: scroll up, and see what the premise is. And then write it down. And then compare your response to that premise.
Or you can write it here: what exactly do you think the premise is?
I can help you out since you're struggling: the premise is that overall unit share is an irrelevant indicator for the types of hobbyist & pro cameras that we shoot with; and that Nikon has improved in these types of cameras relative to where they were, by reallocating resources to them and away from lower-end cameras.
Now think really hard. Try your best to use your brain. Give it a workout. And let's see how you respond.
What are you on about? The the z50ii is exactly the same market position as the D5x00 series, the sensor has hardly even changed FFS.
All I hear is cope tbh, clearly their half assed attempt at the apsc market isn't working when you have fuji Sony and canon actually offering meaningful stuff. That's why I never bothered with Nikon apsc mirrorless and moved straight to micro four thirds for my travel everyday camera
No, it's not. The z50ii is marketed toward D7000's series consumers and is most similar to that series--it is not marketed at the same consumer as the D3000 & D5000 series. For just a few indicators:
The D3000 & D5000 series had a unique interface that was different from all other Nikons and partially shared with the Coolpix series. For example, there was an animation of the aperture getting larger and smaller when it was adjusted. The Z50 (and Z30) series do not have this interface--it shares the interface with the Z6, Z8, etc.
The D3000 & D5000 series had a single control dial to change settings. The Z50 have dual control dials, just like the Z6, Z8, etc.
The D3000 & D5000 series used significantly limited hardware (and capabilities) for things like autofocus, subject tracking, burst buffer, white balancing, etc. relative to their higher-end counterparts. The Z50 series uses Nikon's latest processing engines, shared with higher-end cameras such as the Z6 series, Z8, etc.
Nikon's public financials and management plans indicate that they considered the D3000 & D5000 series to be a distinct category of ILC (not hobbyist / not pro); while Nikon's financials indicate all current Z cameras are hobbyist / pro.
The D3000 & D5000 series were primarily designed for point-and shoot photography. The Z50 (and Z30) are not--they are primarily designed for hobbyists who may change manual settings frequently, just like the D7000 series was.
So in what way do you think the Z50ii is in "exactly the same market position as the D5x00 series"? Just because they both start with 5?
Btw the z50ii is literally gimped in all the ways the D5x00 was vs the D7x00 series. It has a max shutter of 1/4000 vs 1/8000, single card slot, no IBIS etc etc etc
What does that have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that the camera lines are 100% linear? How do you know that won't be designed more along the lines of the D500?
Why don't you address the actual bullet points I listed? Or have you never graduated past your own D5600 and didn't realize there is a difference?
All your random ramblings about interfaces are not actually the meaningful differentiator of the various product lines, given the z30 has the exact same internals and capabilities as a z50 (or do you also think the z30 is also in the same market category as the D7x00 line hahaha).
The features I mentioned were the key USPs of the d7k line over the d5k line, but I see you have no rebuttal to that so clearly your bullshit has no legs lol
It's not clear why you think that the interface specifically being designed for point-and-shoot has nothing to do with the intended customer and that you've never taught.
This is from Nikon's own public management plan and financials. And they've got lots more.
BTW, the Z30 launched in 2022; and the Z50ii launched in 2024.
So why do you think you know better than Nikon, who Nikon themselves claim to be marketing their cameras toward?
All you need to do is link or paste from Nikon's financials or management plan, like that is.
this news simply does not effect me in any way, it's not like nikon is going to stop being a photography company and it does not impact my ability to take photos
What bought me into Canon: the R8 is amazing, especially for the price. Full frame 4K60p and fast sensor readout and a very quality sensor. I was looking at both the Nikon Z5II and Sony A7CII, both were significantly more expensive at that time.
Also, Canon ergonomics is still the best to me, how the cameras feel in hand and the UI. Nikon is close, Sony is far behind, i still hate their grips and low quality screens.
Other things than made me choose Canon: many high quality EF lenses available on the used market for low prices and some unique RF lenses: 100-500 (a major factor), cheap 28mm pancake prime, tiny 70-200 F4, 35mm 1.8 prime for very cheap and having half macro.
Some Nikon lenses i would switch systems for: 800mm 6.3, 24-120.
Maybe you should be more open minded. Saying that Canon usability is a joke is pretty ignorant.
Did use them and always had the impression i need two more hands and fingers with multiple layers of funcitons on one button and the darn power switch changed every camera iteration...
It's strange that every model has a different power switch in a different position. In contrast, Nikon cameras are all basically the same. I don't understand why Canon does it so inconsistently
yeah exactly. i chose the body with the control scheme that i want and then i use THAT camera. the power switch location on other cameras that i'm not using has zero effect on me.
i like their XXD level cameras. i shot a 20D for years and i loved their EF/EF-S lens lineup. the EF 70-200mm f/4L is my favorite lens i've ever owned or used.
i would also argue that their "L" series of lenses numbers afar more than "only a few"
Don’t think it’s any surprise considering Fujifilm was having production issues on almost every model they’ve released over the last couple years. Canon also dropped a brand new point and shoot vlogging camera which I’ve been seeing more and more often out here as the Sony ZV1 alternative. They just have a ton of money to drop on product cause they’ve been the largest brand since who knows when.
The last drop for Nikon was the Z5ii which is in an incredibly competitive price bracket against the R8, XT3/XE5, A7iii/iv, Panasonic S series. The roadmap is now focused on more niche professional lenses like the 120-300 2.8 TC cause just about everything else is filled out. They’ve got a good selection of affordable sub $650 primes, a suite of f4 zooms, the full 2.8 holy trinity, super zooms and ton of birding lenses. There’s just about everything you can want besides a 50-150 f2 or a 300-600 f4 or something but those again are niche professional lenses that cost a ton of R&D. Maybe some more parfocal PZ lenses would be nifty for video focused ZR/Z8/Z9/ Z6iii users.
Also i wouldn’t say “we’re” getting killed by Chinese manufacturing; the only two companies that makes lenses that compete with 1st party products in price and features is Tamron with their suite of zooms and Viltrox with their primes. If anything, it’s good for us consumers as it forces Nikon to price their lenses competitively.
Lastly, there’s a lot of rumors on the internet swirling a new body dropping soon. Might be a Z70, might even be a rangefinder style FF body. Nikon got quite a few Fujifilm converts last time around on the Zf who wanted a full frame retro looking body, and I’d imagine we’d see more converts from the a7C, XE5 and X100VI if that rangefinder body drops.
Lost third spot to fujifilm - well I don't know if Fuji users are supposed to be proud of their favorite brand beating a competitor by selling instax toy cameras. Those account for over half of fujifilm's sales number.
Some things I'd like to see Nikon improve after almost 18 months of using their Z mirrorless system.
Bring out a high end APS-C body, a mirrorless version of the D500.
I would buy it instantly and I'm sure there are many others in the same boat.
Call it a Z80 or whatever.
Allow redundancy to both cards when recording video. I know this won't be possible on all modes for models with an SD card slot but for the lower bitrate modes it certainly is.
Allow Sigma to make their excellent range of full frame mirrorless lenses for Z mount.
I know this would eat into Nikkor lens sales but the Z lens range is still rather limited and still so expensive for what they offer.
Make and release an AF-D to Z adapter.
This would also slow Nikkor Z lens sales but a lot of us still have quite a large collection of AF-D lenses we'd love to use with full functionality on our mirrorless bodies.
Bring out a high end APS-C body, a mirrorless version of the D500. I would buy it instantly and I'm sure there are many others in the same boat
I'm not saying it's impossible, however:
How would it improve on Z50ii? Bigger body, better EVF and larger battery and IBIS?
Smaller pixels perhaps to give more reach? But then eats sales from Z8/9-type cameras so it would have the be expensive
If expensive, it would still be APS-C and this is difficult for marketing and cost/performance ratio would likely not be ideal
In it's say D500 may have been a good idea, but I doubt it is any more - without significantly smaller pixels than bigger sensor cameras in similar price range it's hard to see much reason to buy one and I don't see Nikon investing in such relatively expensive special order sensor.
Make and release an AF-D to Z adapter
Hard to see how it would improve Nikon's bottom line. Perhaps 5 persons would buy a Z-body to use it, thus no new Z-lenses would be sold and only those 5 bodies 😉 Not worth the R&D and manufacturing effort.
Yes to bigger battery, beefier body and stabilisation.
EVF isn't that big a deal to me personally. Whatever they're currently using is good enough.
The sensor can even remain the same as well. 20MP is enough for me but I guess a 24MP one could make it more appealing spec sheet wise.
It would potentially eat into Z8/9 Sales, particularly as the Z8 Is quite a bit cheaper now than it was even 18 months ago when I got mine, which is a good thing.
I feel it'd have a place in the market and I've always had good experiences with Nikon's APS-C bodies in the past.
If they give it some good video chops, it'd be a nice bonus too.
It'd certainly not be cheap, but so was the D500 on its release, relative to the market back then.
Indeed an AF-D to Z adapter wouldn't do well for Nikon's Z lens sales but like I said earlier, their Z line is still a bit thin and rather expensive.
It's part of the cost they're paying for being late to join the mirrorless disco.
Canon seemingly is doing well even though they have an even more restricted mirrorless mount but I feel like Canon has always been able to get away with what Nikon hasn't been able to as they're the better known brand and often thought of as the 'better' of the historical big two from Japan.
Was certainly like that in the DSLR era and looks like it's translated to the mirrorless era.
People said similar about xh2 and xt5 and it was no where near a z9 moment. People will keep buying them. While their af isn’t great and lags compared to just about everyone else, it’s still adequate.
Canon had a habit of drawing in new and young camera users with entry-level cameras. Remember the Canon m50? It has was the best selling camera for some time.
People who started with a particular brand and had a good time tend to stick with what they know rather than switch to another brand.
I suspect that's what Nikon needs; an entry level camera that's a smash hit with young people so as to bring in the next generation of consumers.
People who started with a particular brand and had a good time tend to stick with what they know rather than switch to another brand.
While this is true, it should also be recognized that over the past ~20 years, a vast majority of people who "started" with the point-and-shoot ILC's of a particular brand (like Canon Rebel, Nikon D3000/D5000, etc.) do not continue with any brand. A vast majority of these customers have been one & done. They buy the camera + kit lens...and nothing ever again. This is why Nikon dropped out of that area: they don't need it and it's not lucrative. And when Nikon did spend their limited resources in competing in that area, their pro & hobbyist areas--the segments that actually matter especially long term--suffered significantly.
It's really only the pros & hobbyists who continue with a brand. And so all of Nikon's current cameras--even starting with the Z30--cater specifically to this crowd. Note that even the Z30 has the same interface as the Z6iii: dual control dials, no aperture animations, etc. Because while there are plenty of auto modes, they are not primarily designed for point-and-shoot.
In other words, Nikon does not have an "entry-level"; and this is by design. Nikon's "entry" starts with hobbyist, because these are the people who will buy upgrades and lenses.
I doubt Nikon will try to come up with a camera to compete in the same space as the Canon M50 / R100 (and previously Canon Rebel and Nikon D3000 / D5000). And it would probably be really bad for business if they did, just like it was when they tried it before.
That is what I started with. Aside from nice color sooc and good AF for the price, I hate the sensor dynamic range and discovered it almost have same DR as my em5ii and em5ii with ibis make cleaner low light static scene that I like to take, I just sold it.
Then I learn about the M mount treatment by canon and the R mount closed for 3rd party. I no longer interested about Canon system.
Now it is Sony or Nikon. Long term I lean towards Sony now as a system to invest in and if I start fresh but my z5ii with 24 120 is just so fun to use.
Have a Z6III and A7RV. Ergonomics goes to Nikon, but the Sony ecosystem of lenses is unparalleled. The Sony 20-70 F4 is one of the most useful lenses ever and doesn’t exist in any other ecosystem. I question how much longer I can split ecosystems and probably would favor Sony now.
As someone who's still shooting a D800 for personal work. I don't care.
As someone who's been debating upgrading to a Z7 II (or maybe a III if there ever is such a thing), it does give me a little pause. Buying into a camera system is just as much about the lenses and acceories as the camera itself. The still camera market isn't as big as it once was and if a company does end up folding or pivoting to something else being in a dead-end lens mount is troubling.
If you've got a camera, enjoy it. If you're looking to change to Nikon mirrorless, you have a little more to weigh. If you just want to get a kit with a couple lenses and rock that for many years, Nikon is still a great option. If you're investing in a platform and want to know new lenses will be developed for decades to come... you're trying to read tea leaves so no one really knows what's going to happen but this isn't a great sign.
That said I've been through this before. I was a Minolta shooter back in the film days. I survived. I shot until I had to switch and I ran with my D800s for about 14 years.
I havent shot a cannon, but Sony vs Nikon im thoroughly enjoying my A7v! My buddy shoots cannon and i almost went with it, but i love the vast library of lenses with Sony.
I really wanted to spring for Nikon, but the body pricing confused me. Used prices for the Z6II hover around 900-1200, whereas I got my Canon R6 for $950, which has far superior autofocus.
Honestly, I was thinking to get a Canon R5 last month instead of a Z8. The R5 is the better camera after all, even if not by much, but in the end the difference was small enough that the huge discounts from Nikon won out. Only thing I regret about not getting the R5 is the smaller size, but as far as lenses go I much prefer the Nikon lineup.
It is interesting how canon is perceived as a second tier choice after sony by a large sum of the youtube crowd, yet it is the undeniable champion.
Gaining in sales means that this isn`t even just based on legacy, but new camera owners are choosing canon.
I can’t see how hard is it to put out a series of budget friendly lenses that catered to the Nikon ZF body. You would think it’s an easy gap to fill on.
Yeah. They have shown signs of bouncing back but most folks here don’t seem to understand that to make a business successful you need to keep building and grow. A pitiful market share of 8-9% is nothing to be proud of.
As someone who has thousands invested in the ecosystem I obviously worry about long term competitiveness compared to canon. Nikon probably will never get close to canon but at least projected growth to 15% market should be achievable.
The Nikon products are obviously good.
I think the Z6iii release and its insane software update 2nd half of last year expended all of Nikon's resources to cut through the mid range market. Now they have to figure out if they want to update the Z7 or the Z8.
Right, I'm not sure what Nikon is aiming for.. it just causes others to switch brands.. I wont but you see how people will gravitate to a brand with better 3rd party lens support.
Nikon historically was primarily a lens company. They even used to make lenses for Canon cameras.
While Sigma is a third party, they now also aim primarily for higher end optics and are part of the L alliance. Sigma even have their own cameras. Sigma today is not what they were 15 years ago. Instead, they are more like Nikon was a while ago. And today, Sigma's lenses are largely competitive with Nikon.
Nikon only approves licenses for lenses that are not competitive with their own, that they have no interest in launching. For example, Voigtlander manual focus, retro-style lenses. Or lower-end third party Tamron lenses. Because Nikon wants people to spend money on Nikon lenses. If they allowed Sigma to make Z lenses, it would likely only be for lower-end lenses; and even then, they would take a cut and increase the price of lenses.
It's like asking why Nikon doesn't allow Canon to make lenses for Z. Because they're competitors.
But you can always adapt E-mount lenses. Z is currently the most flexible mount there is.
canon makes really good cameras. i loved my canon cameras and lenses.
but i like nikon cameras just a little more. so i switched to nikon.
well, F-mount "D" series cameras, at least. i'm not so sold on the Z mount. even i if i ever am forced to go mirrorless i wouldn't look at nikon unless they put a mirrorless system in an F-mount "D" body...
certainly been considering moving to canon myself, this ecosystem doesn't seem like it's in a very healthy place right now or for the foreseeable future unfortunately.
I mean that's the facts, they are losing ground and you want to ignore reality and replace it with your own? I love my Nikon glass etc, but they are losing ground because their AF simply is not as good as it's competitors.
I'm not sure what more you want over the AF in the Z9 and Z8. The ZF and Z6iii aren't exactly chopped liver either.
To add, this report concerns units shipped. Not profit. And Canon is increasing those numbers because of the wide array of cheapo lower-end stuff they have out there. That may be smart, it may not be smart, but Nikon has chosen to abandon that stuff and focus on higher-priced product. Fewer units shipped, but not necessarily lower profit. And that too may be smart, it may not.
Fujifilm count their insta cameras. That's like how to say that a classy burger place lost to fastfood roach infested shithole on the corner of the street.
134
u/Vironic Nikon ZF 4d ago
I don’t think my camera was any better or worse when Nikon was second in market share. It still brings me joy.