Nikon Re-Thinkng "1 System" Citing Poor Sales

[bruce rubenstein]

The people who think the Series 1 didn't sell well because of technical limitations, aren't paying attention to all the not-so-great, underwhelming, poor selling $600 - $800 cameras that became really-nice, hot selling, $200-$300 cameras. (Nikon 1, EOS-M)

The vast majority of people who buy entry level DSLR's (same price range as these mirrorless cameras) aren't forum follower enthusiasts. For them, these cameras have less perceived value than what their price is. Nikon would probably do better dropping the high end Coolpix models and replacing them with, at the same price as the Coolpix models, with the Series 1, and add a "Nikon" RX100. There would at least be some real IQ distance between those cameras and camera phones.

 

[Cleanimage]

I certainly won't contest that Nikon has gotten acceptable image quality results with their CX sensor. However, they derive no marketing value from using the tiny sensor and absent breakthrough technology, they face a more difficult challenge in trying to improve the image quality of the CX sensor when they have less to work with than their competitors. Combine that with an extremely high price and a very muddled marketing strategy and they have run into trouble selling their product and are now rethinking their strategy.

 

[bruce rubenstein]

By Thom Hogan - The Nikon 1 Head Scratcher

Anyone who thinks that the Series 1 was IQ crippled by the small sensor should read this...twice if you don't actually own one of the cameras.

 

[IsamuM]

By Thom Hogan - The Nikon 1 Head Scratcher

Anyone who thinks that the Series 1 was IQ crippled by the small sensor should read this...twice if you don't actually own one of the cameras.

+1

 

[dkabat]

I too agree that the sensor looks pretty good (don'y own one......yet). It sure seems there are a lot of good things with this camera: small size (lenses too), auto focus capability, use regular Nikkor lenses. This sounds like just the ticket for hikes, birding with my 500 f/4 near the road or going light and birding on hikes in Costa Rica. About died in January carrying a D300, D800 Gitzo 1325, flash, 500f/4, 70-200 f2.8 and 28 f 1.8. I am to old for this.

I too agree that the price point was just too much and the original V1 was crippled. Now all I want to do is wait for the next version where it is no longer crippled and it is at a reasonable price.

I am an inveterate Hogan reader and he has yet to steer me wrong. I belive he is correct on this too.

Dan

 

[Rich Gibson]

I certainly won't contest that Nikon has gotten acceptable image quality results with their CX sensor. However, they derive no marketing value from using the tiny sensor and absent breakthrough technology, they face a more difficult challenge in trying to improve the image quality of the CX sensor when they have less to work with than their competitors. Combine that with an extremely high price and a very muddled marketing strategy and they have run into trouble selling their product and are now rethinking their strategy.

+1.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I certainly won't contest that Nikon has gotten acceptable image quality results with their CX sensor. However, they derive no marketing value from using the tiny sensor and absent breakthrough technology, they face a more difficult challenge in trying to improve the image quality of the CX sensor when they have less to work with than their competitors. Combine that with an extremely high price and a very muddled marketing strategy and they have run into trouble selling their product and are now rethinking their strategy.

I'm beginning to wonder if the Nikon 1 is just R&D for future camera tech. The features of the 1 blow away much of the competition. If Nikon ever wakes up and makes a mirrorless DX/FX body, they can potentially dominate in the mirrorless market. The hybrid PDAF, silent shutter, 1/16000th are all class leading. Unfortunately the 1" sensor is hampered in low light. That's why I've decided to keep a V1 body (for AF-C, the FT-1 and video) and get a M43 body in conjunction for higher ISO shooting. Even the dated 16mp chip from the Panasonic G3/GX1 retain better detail above 800 ISO over the Nikon 1 sensor.

 

[Panther]

I'm beginning to wonder if the Nikon 1 is just R&D for future camera tech. The features of the 1 blow away much of the competition.

For sure!
They could have stuck all the "1" technology in the Coolpix A with an ƒ2.0 lens & wow!

 

[Thorsten]

By Thom Hogan - The Nikon 1 Head Scratcher

Anyone who thinks that the Series 1 was IQ crippled by the small sensor should read this...twice if you don't actually own one of the cameras.

+1

I don't always agree with Thom Hogan and his constant theme that he always knows best (and better than Nikon), but with this article he hit the nail on the head. I own the V1 and like it a lot, in fact I shoot it more than my DLRs. The sensor size is perfectly fine, but Nikon messed up royally with their marketing message and pricing.

 

[7006]

Question.
How many reviews assess the quality of images in a "scientific manner" without knowing which camera they come from, with a control group, etc..?

 

[X Ray]

For sure!
They could have stuck all the "1" technology in the Coolpix A with an ƒ2.0 lens & wow!

If the Coolpix A had the V1 auto focus with a decent max aperture like f2, and 50mm to 85mm full frame equivalent focal length, I will sale ALL my gear and be done. The Coolpix A at that point would be the PERFECT camera for me.

And that's exactly why Nikon won't do it. It would KILL their low end DSLR and lens sales.

 

[Thorsten]

If the Coolpix A had the V1 auto focus with a decent max aperture like f2, and 50mm to 85mm full frame equivalent focal length, I will sale ALL my gear and be done. The Coolpix A at that point would be the PERFECT camera for me.

And that's exactly why Nikon won't do it. It would KILL their low end DSLR and lens sales.

That indeed would be a great kit. And if that's really the reason why Nikon won't do it, then it's a very dumb decision, because somebody else will bring out such a camera sooner or later.

 

[fks]

Aptina probably has the tech for the on-sensor phase detection.

It's reasonable to expect that eventually it will make its way to DX and FX sensors, given that Canon has already done it on the D70.

And if that's really the reason why Nikon won't do it, then it's a very dumb decision, because somebody else will bring out such a camera sooner or later.

 

[Panther]

Well,
If the Coolpix A drops in price like the V1, then I'll probably pick it up :smile:

 

[Northgrove]

It's only recently that I've come to fully understand the brilliance of Nikon's decision to move to 1" sensors. I think they were ahead of their time when they were introduced, and the timing got all wrong at least for my state of mind. When it was introduced, I recall foolishly writing it off almost instantly as I thought even m4/3 was at the lower limit of where I was willing to go. I didn't understand how Nikon could do this. They didn't even push the image quality in ads and sample photos too much, but rather oddities like super fast continuous shooting and "shooting before you shoot". Nice features, but strange quirks to highlight on a whole new system where skeptics were mostly discussing its potential image quality, thinking it couldn't be taken seriously.

Then the RX100 came and shocked a large part of the photography community, and now, a couple of years in hindsight, Nikon 1 stands alone as the only interchangeable system with this wonderful compromise between size and quality. It would be a too harsh of a compromise a few years ago, but today, as sensors have improved to actually be able to contain their power within an inch, I think it's perfect for snapshot-style photos.

They won't ever be as compact as the RX100 since Nikon can't take shortcuts like you can when building a lens into a camera body, but they will also always be smaller than an already small micro 4/3 system with maintained good quality.

The Nikon 1 plan reminds me of the famous Wayne Gretzky quote -- "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been". It's just that Nikon didn't succeed in telling this too well, and I hope this won't cost the system dearly. If a V3 returns to the V1 design with an updated sensor, I'm sold!

 

[Panther]

Sounds good in theory but....
Arguably, Micro Four Thirds biggest critique from non-users is directed at DOF differences. Follow-on criticism then stated something like "that 1.8 lens isn't really a 1.8".

Well, the Micro Four Thirds sensor is even larger than the "1" system.

So the question for Nikon is how do they market the "1" system? As you stated, pure size might be their best choice.

Another thing that I suppose Nikon is pondering is how to incrementally improve their APS-C Coolpix A without cutting into their DSLR or "1" system sales.

 

[Rich Gibson]

I agree with Panther. I suspect Nikon's goal was to produce a camera and lens system which retained a proportionality with respect to body and lens which they theorized would be more acceptable to most consumers. A mirrorless system (the NEX, for example) with an APS-C sensor has a disproportionately large lens compared to the body. This met with initial comments about how huge the lenses were (in relation to the body). That initial resistance to the NEX is gradually being overcome with innovative approaches to reduce the absolute size of the lens.

I don't see brilliance in Nikon's decision. They took a reasoned approach and a gamble, but it was on the wrong path. Their hands are tied, technologically compared to 4/3rds and APS-C sensor size. I think the optimum body size is one which feels comfortable in most human hands; Leica has known that for years. Tiny is not necessarily better. My choice was, and remains the NEX-7. I look forward to its successor.

 

[crashton]

I'm still very happy with my Nikon V1 & lenses. For me they do what I need. I'm sure I'm not the only one who enjoys the fruits of the Nikon 1 system. :biggrin:

 

[7006]

Love mine (v1) too as a day to day camera and at £299 with the 10-30 lens it was a bargain that I could not turn down.

 

[Rooz]

I don't see brilliance in Nikon's decision. They took a reasoned approach and a gamble, but it was on the wrong path. Their hands are tied, technologically compared to 4/3rds and APS-C sensor size. I think the optimum body size is one which feels comfortable in most human hands; Leica has known that for years. Tiny is not necessarily better. My choice was, and remains the NEX-7. I look forward to its successor.

Just cos they screwed it up doesn't mean that it was the wrong path. It could also mean they screwed up the right path.

Tiny may not necessarily be better but for this sort of camera the tiny lens' are critical to success IMHO. Thats THE selling point.. The only reason I steered clear of apsc mirrorless is cos the size and weight of the lens' I want to use are typically bigger than I want for a truly compact system.