Sony Overtakes Nikon in Sales

Not at all surprising when you look are Nikon's updates so far in 2015 thru 2017. They are all overpriced or under performing compared to their predecessors.

The last FF Nikon that triggered some interest outside the circles of Nikon users was 5 years ago: the D800. After that mostly boring me-too products. D4 was a big letdown in resolution and EOS 1D X ate it for breakfast. Probably outsold 20 to 1. D5 was too little too late. DF is a plastic D600 body with surplus D4 sensor because Nikon could not get rid of them... and some retro looking outside styling. That didn't fool anyone.

Now is their 100th Anniversary and already a third has passed of the year. No FF cameras yet.

Some kind of buzz product could entice some interest to the brand. Like a D5X with 80 mpix sensor. Would it sell well? No. The single digit models are halo products not intended to sell all that well but to act as advertisements of the brand and to be the test bed for new tech.

Diminishing market share, diminishing revenue, already profit turned into loss, layoffs, ... all this is bad for future R&D budget and can mean even less interesting products in the future. Perhaps I'll need to stockpile some gear in the next couple of years to last me for life.

pforsell said:

The last FF Nikon that triggered some interest outside the circles of Nikon users was 5 years ago: the D800. After that mostly boring me-too products. D4 was a big letdown in resolution and EOS 1D X ate it for breakfast. Probably outsold 20 to 1. D5 was too little too late. DF is a plastic D600 body with surplus D4 sensor because Nikon could not get rid of them... and some retro looking outside styling. That didn't fool anyone.

Now is their 100th Anniversary and already a third has passed of the year. No FF cameras yet.

Some kind of buzz product could entice some interest to the brand. Like a D5X with 80 mpix sensor. Would it sell well? No. The single digit models are halo products not intended to sell all that well but to act as advertisements of the brand and to be the test bed for new tech.

Diminishing market share, diminishing revenue, already profit turned into loss, layoffs, ... all this is bad for future R&D budget and can mean even less interesting products in the future. Perhaps I'll need to stockpile some gear in the next couple of years to last me for life.

Click to expand...

I thought the D750 did better!

Sony does not make their own lenses do they? I thought they used Zeiss-made lenses.

Sony actually makes almost if not all of their lenses, including Zeiss. They make the Zeiss lenses according to Zeiss' specifications, which gives them the Zeiss badge of honor. There may be a few Zeiss/Sony lenses that are made exclusively by Zeiss​, but not sure which ones.

Oh and to complete the answer, Sony does make some of their lenses without the Zeiss branding.

I agree Nikon has already broke through the thin ice they were skating on. Rehashes of previous products is not going to be a successful business model. They have waited entirely to long (along with Canon imo) in going without mirror so they gave up all of that market share which is evident by Sony surpassing them both. Sony did that because of the A7 which was the hottest new thing since the Beatles when it came out. Photographers in droves jumped ship when that camera out. As for the Zeiss deal years ago Sony bought all the Minolta tooling and hence the A mount. Zeiss had already been using Cosina since about 1971 when Zeiss went bankrupt and Leica had been using Minolta since the mid 70s so all of the branded stuff is built out by Sony as per spec of Zeiss and Leica (Panasonic).

What allowed Sony to jump ahead so far so fast in the sensor department? Their own capability to a large degree and when they bought Hitachi's image section they finally had a leg up.

When Sony finally buys out Nikon here in a few years Canon will go down.layful: You say not possible? I refer you to Kodak.

Sony took the number two slot in full-frame interchangeable-lens camera sales, January through February 2017. That's a pretty specific market and an even more specific reporting-period. I'm not sure how relevant that whopping eight-week time-frame is going to be in the big picture.

Look at the past two years Paul. That is the big picture. Nikon is bleeding out. Put a fork in it already.

Nikon is hurting in the worst way and they are in denial. https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=s9_hfn...99-337b-57bf-942b-d98ef6412adb&pf_rd_i=281052

I read this a long time ago, and I believe it still is true: Nikon hurt itself terribly by reducing the support to professionals, or just not keeping up with what Canon did to support them. As a result, there are a lot of Canon shooters at high profile events with the distinctive Canon off-white lenses. This visability has helped Canon capture a lot of the amateur market share, and it is the one that sticks the most; i.e., amateurs aren't as likely to switch out gear brands as professionals are.

Couple this with the mirrorless market surge, which in my casual eye is set to be dominated by Sony, and it is no surprise that Nikon dropped to where it is. The question I have is when Sony becomes the overall leader is camera distribution, outside the cellular phone market.

WM

Whiskey I believe your pretty spot on. I would add this to what you have said. The F made Nikon into the powerhouse long ago because it was reliable. Guaranteed to shoot and not let anyone down. Many years after the F pros still require one thing above all others and that is it must work every single time. When the 5D came along it was just that. A stone cold reliable machine. That, along with those other factors, including cheaper but as good or better glass, is how Canon took the crown off Nikon's head.

Same is now true for consumers too. Look at the Amazon sales report I linked. Nikon is hurting more than many think.