Nikon Sales of High-End Cameras Slipping

Nikon Sales of High-End Cameras Slipping

Nikon has always been the silver medal holder in the High End Digital Camera race behind Canon, but always remained proud with their numbers boasting well above Sony, Fuji or Olympus. With their recent quarterly statements however, Nikon seems to be struggling even more than they had thought, and posted slipping numbers for the third quarter of the year.

Released just the other day, Nikon has shown a 41% drop in operating profit to $222 million for the last six months leading up to November. Stating that depressed demands for Professional Level DSLRs in oversea markets the reason for the flux of numbers, Nikon plans to cut its sales projections from 6.55 million units to 6.20 million - the second cut they've made this year.

While numbers are dropping considerably for Nikon, 48.2% drop in operating profit this year so far; people still have high hopes for Nikon. Many of the features made within Nikon cameras are outsourced, which will often cut into profits (but would require higher operating costs as well). Sensors are often made by Sony, and other parts come from various electronic suppliers. Is this downturn in the Pro level DSLR market a symptom of no new gear, or is it a transition to the iPhoneography and growing mirrorless market that we have come to expect?

[via Rueters]

Zach Sutton's picture

Zach Sutton is an award-winning and internationally published commercial and headshot photographer based out of Los Angeles, CA. His work highlights environmental portraiture, blending landscapes and scenes with portrait photography. Zach writes for various publications on the topic of photography and retouching.

Log in or register to post comments
93 Comments
Previous comments

So what's Canon's position on all this. Maybe there's a world wide drop in Pro line camera sales. To be completely honest, I'm using a trustworthy D3 at the moment and have done so for the past 3 years. I am a wedding photographer and find the D3 to be an absolute wonder. I recently changed the shutter at 300K and after it came out from Nikon service, it looks and goes like day 1. A true masterpiece machine by Nikon. However, I have shot about 20.000 pictures with the D4. While there are some improvements: video, better ISO performance from 3200 upwards, some new buttons ( backlight etc ) - I hardly make use of them ( I don't shoot videos, and I never shoot past ISO 2000 ( 2500 max in very little situations ). I have several 1.4 lenses, and I never feel the need to go higher than ISO 2000. However I do have some issues with D4's colors. For starters, the AWB is absolutely dreadful. Of course you will argue that TRUE PROS don't use AWB, and that's almost correct, I use manual WB most of the time, but there are a lot of situations when lights change and I need to rely on AWB to get the shot. Even when shooting RAW, sometimes is very tricky to get them right, even on custom WB ... And I am not the only one complaining about the colors on the D4.
Here's an example : http://www.flickr.com/photos/21982791@N02/10734759253/
Both shots in the same place, AWB on both, both are straight from the cameras. Guess which one is which.
So right now I really don't feel ANY need to upgrade. I feel that Nikon struck gold with the D3/D700/D300 each being the absolute best in their own category and to be honest, they kinda still their ground ( I have not shot with the D3s so far ).
Also I feel there's another area where Nikon lost their "touch". The "quality" of the noise :) In the D3/D700 lines, the noise was very film-like, monochromatic and somewhat plesant. D4's noise for example started to exhibit the problem that Canon used to have in the past : chromatic noise. These are problems are not very "talked about" but they ARE THERE.
You can check out my D3 vs D4 small tests here : http://mgphotographer.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/nikon-d4-vs-nikon-d3-revi...

Canon also has their problems. However, after brief testing the 5D Mk3 I can honestly say that's a great camera ( finally ). Back in the 5D MK2 area, things were not so "rosy". Honestly when jumping from a D700 to a 5D Mk2 - you can't help notice the absolute dreadful AF system, the crappy LCD Screen and the "pretty much" useless manual-focus ability on the Canon. Ok it had video, and it was great at it, but from a Pro Photographer's pov there was no comparison between the Mk2 and the D700.

And there are many PROs out there that consider that whatever they are currently using ( D3, D700, D3s ) are still VERY CAPABLE cameras - and they TRULY ARE so there's no need to upgrade to an incremental "kind of" better camera that the D4 is. So that can be a reason why the Pro sales have flunked. Let's be honest - nothing really earth-shattering has happened to the Pro World in the past 3-4-5 years - at least on Nikon's camp and from a D3/D700 owner's pov. Canon on the other hand, has finally managed to regain ground with the 1Dx, considering that their 1D Mk4 was a very poor attempt at chasing Nikon's flagship at the time : the D3s. Also I consider that the 5D Mk3 is the best semi-pro line camera. Nikon simply doesn't have anything against it from a wedding photographer pov for example. And wedding photography is pretty much the most common PRO photo occupation.

I am still waiting for another product from Nikon that will blow us away just like the D3/D700 did back in the days. That was a TRUE REVOLUTION.

You are absolutely right to compare them to Apple - considering that the iPhone 4 was to the world what the D3 was when it came out : the game changer. Everything that came after, simply a very small step "evolution".

I totally agree with u I got nikon D700,D3s,D800 canon Mark3 but D3s and D700 r winner colors r so vibrant Nikon D800 always gives me a powdery face look in indoor artificial situations

canon drop 4-6 %.... nikon drop 28%... both in a 6 month period (dslr sales).
no need to talk about facts.

no normal customer needs 36 MP.
not for flickr, facbook or the usal prints.
some "enthusiast" may WANT 36MP .. but even they don´t need it.

that is way the 5D MK3 sells much better then the D800... the 5D MK3 is the overall better camera.

The 5D3 is what the D800 should have been.

put the 5D3 AF in the D800 and boom. you get a hell of a camera

part of the reason their sales are slipping is that just about everyone who is going to buy a d4, d800, or d600/610 has already done so. when you look at nikon's pro offerings, they really haven't done much of anything in 2013, so why would you even expect good sales in a segment that you have largely ignored? as many others here have alluded to, there's some distinct holes in the pro lineup that would be pretty easy to fill if nikon weren't focusing so much attention on "pure photography..."

Yeah you can't really say that, as the sales figures for their STUPED SLOGEN aren't even out yet.

The irony of the spelling in this post is the best thing about this comments section. So many market experts are reading and commenting on Petapixel at once!

Nikon! Just give us a D700 with a D600 sensor @ 8 fps and we'll buy it! Keep it simple.

Well.... all that is good. What do we do then ?
In fact problem is lenses. I will not drop all my lenses so...

Prediction... Nikon will be purchased by Sony within 5 years....

I don't know about that. Sony is not in really good financial state either.

Three things that are killing their market are cellphone, lack of innovation, and not listing to their customer base. Two of those they can improve one, but cellphone market is just gonna eat up on all the PS and other basic camera stuff.

You walk into an Apple store and say "I need a computer" and they say "desktop or laptop" and you say "laptop" and they can basically say "small, medium or large?" and you go home happy. You walk into a camera store and say "I need a camera" and you are there for a day or three and the more you learn the less you know what you want. The lineups - except for the FF bodies for the most part - are way too complicated and the manufacturers have way too much inventory sitting there. When consumers get confused, they don't buy. They go home.

Simplify the product lines, then make the best damned few cameras around in their position in the product line. That is all.

This decline in profits isn't surprising. Much of Nikons sales growth over the last number of years was due to the "point & shoot" buyer moving from the p&s camera and purchasing a dslr for the first time. Those cameras are for more capable then the typical needs of the user and therefore no reason to upgrade to the newer models. The advanced amateurs & professionals are they only segments that will upgrade on any type of continual basis.

Its simply because of video. It sounds too simple but thats what its coming down to. Canon is known for having great video across the board especially in their pro level DSLR's and its making them much more attractive than Nikon. I'm a Nikon D600 shooter and love the image and video...but my friends Canon always makes me envious of the video quality...considering the switch myself

what video quality are people referring to? the D800 does UNCOMPRESSED RAW. The 5D3 doesn't.

With magic lantern the 5dmkIII absolutely does uncompressed RAW. It also has dual ISO (so Dynamic Range of 14 stops or so). Nikon doesn't allow you to change settings on the fly like Canon does. So changing of lighting conditions makes shooting on the Nikon a complete pain

Its less about the uncompress raw and more of the look. As someone who shoots Music videos, short films, and commercials the canon lineup gives a better overall filmic look than nikon

I still love my Nikon camera for one simple reason: it has better colors then Canon!

Agreed

While it's not fair to do a comparison of DSLR sales between Canon and Nikon because they both made the products line up as much complicated as the Samsung & LG in the mobile phone market, it would be interesting to do a comparison of sales between the Pro-DSLR (Canon & Nikon) and the real professional medium format cameras (Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Leaf, Mamiya, Leica, Pentax). Just leave the tech cameras off the comparison. It would be really eye-opening to see the shift in sales since the Nikonians/Canonians made the war eat in to the MFDB with 35+ megapixels. Is there a real jump from MFDB to Pro-DSLR due to the megapixels and speed or is it a war self-made by DSLR companies and thereby they are losing their PROs to upgrade to MFDB systems?

Personally, I love Nikon and own a D90. I have used D800 on rentals. I own a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II with 120 & 220 film backs. I've decided to postpone my purchase decision to upgrade my existing camera line up - either to a pro Nikon DSLR or buy a MF digital back for my Mamiya. I think I should wait until 2014 Photokina to make up my mind.

For me Nikon's recent lineup of cameras is weird. And I think they also should bring up the products what pros need and not on experimenting on new products like Df, D600(610) and D800 (Yes, these cameras are good but I hope you get my point)
People have been looking for successors of D700 and D300s, but where is it? Why change the lineup completely? It is irreversible!
I had the chance to move to Canon but still bought a Nikon D700 for I love the design, functions and user interface Nikon offers. And now? I am stuck with it as I am hoping for a "worth the money" replacement (D700s? D710? I don't know)

When sales figures of pro gear starts declining the roof is on fire. Pro gear rakes in profit Nikon so desperately needs to stay in the lower end business where margins are quite low.

My take is that gear mainly dedicated to still photography has reached a state of maturity where updates are not that alluring any more.

Case in point, my spare D300 does 8fps, 1/8000, 1/250X and features dedicated buttons for all sorts of functions. Not even the latest D610 can hold up with that let alone the D7100. Mind you the D300 is a 2007 (!) model and still plays in the top league except for pixel number.
Fancy 24mp or even 36mp obviously are not compelling enough to make people purchase the latest and greatest.

Last but not least, Nikon is far behind Canon when it comes to video. Sigh.

Well, if it is an industry trend rather than just one company, then the market is telling the companies something... I think there will always be a demand for pro-DSLRs, but there are more amateurs then pros.... Maybe the amateurs are sticking with amateur gear.....?

Some of this stems from two natural disasters they suffered, some from bad decisions. Nikon has been down before. We'll have to wait and see how they'll fare during the next year.

You can blame disasters for delays in production/releases. You can blame it maybe for the poor QC. But even without natural disasters, nikon would still have a disastrously flawed FF lineup. Decision making is 99% of the problem.

The D4 and the D800 (used to?) have the left af point issue. Also, the D800 has 36mp and I don't know any pros happy with that (Kelby, Brenizer..). D600 is a toy, with dust problem, silly AF, 1/4000th. D610 could be better, but they just solve the dust problem. Maybe you can work with it but it's far from being a good camera. The Df is worst than my D700 except for high ISO, and I can buy 2 D700s for that price and save enough to travel to Paris and London to do some "pure photography", instead of buy one Df and shoot my dog. I'm not a video fan but they say Nikon is not as good as Canon in recording video. Last but not least, Nikon never do anything concrete to solve/apologies/recognize the dust problem on the D600 or the af issue with D4/D800.

So, dear Nikon, I'm a pro and I really want to buy a second body. I don't want a Ferrari for free, but I need it to be reliable (2 memory slot and fu**ing no issue), with a resolution I can handle without spending 2500 euros for a new imac, and I need it to be a complete (1/8000th, 1/250th syncro, video, cross AF point not only in the centre and af point in all the frame) and a little bit more affordable than a D4 since I don't need extreme weather sealing and 11fps. Canon already did it with the 5d mkIII, so please make a good camera you too since I don't want to switch brand, again.

Pro's can afford new hard drives. I'm using a 2009 mac pro and have no problem processing D800 files.

Need a second body? buy a second D800 like I did. problem solved.

it's not so much the resolution but the dynamic range of the D800.

Remember when the biggest memory card you could buy was a 1GB 'micro-drive' ??

well now we're going to have to upgrade. deal with it. it's inevitable. as technology evolves, the data pipeline gets bigger.

Point per point:
-pros afford anything anytime, as people always say behind the screen. My real situation is a little bit diffrent. And I have an old macbook pro that can't manage D800's files. Also, I don't want to spend everything to join a mp race that Nikon is running alone.
-No no, it's about the resolution. DR on the D800 is awesome, but the problem is the files size. I do a lot of event and wedding and 2000 shots per session is a nightmare with the D800.
-No, Im' young. :)
-We have to upgrade, but the megapixels race has little to do with evolution. I upgrade myself buying books, looking at the master, going to workshops, shooting more and better..and sometimes replacing old gear with better gear. Not spending everything for new computer, new drives, new memories..

The D800 is awesome, but is not the perfect camera for every photog. The D4 is awesome, but it cost too much. The d600/610 is half a serious camera for a pro. The problem is that Nikon haven't a versatile pro camera who suits a big market of pros. And the second problem is that there's too many Nikon fanboy that will always believe that Nikon product are perfect, suits everybodys needs and who don't get it are a bunch of assholes.

I really hate the 1/4000 complaints about the d600/610. It also has ISO100 which gives it the same range as a D700, D3 and D3s which could go to 1/8000 but only as low as ISO200.

There's plenty enough to complain about the d600 without bringing the shutter speed into it.

I think it's funny that people claim nikon isn't listening to their customers when pretty much every canon users forum everywhere is full of people yearning for a D800 competitor with a high resolution sensor with great dynamic range.

Canon just repackaged the 5D2 with a new AF module and charged $1000 more than the 5D2 retail price, and you all act like they care about the customer.

They've also since released several mark II lenses that are MARGINALLY sharper (the difference can be eliminated by a simply USM in photoshop), and they charged at least $1000 more for the mark II.

Sure, the D600 had problems, but canon has no equivalent FF backup camera. The sensor still blows the doors off the 5D3.

You can shoot fast-moving sports w/ the D800's AF system w/ ease.
You can also reduce the RAW file sizes from 75MB to 45MB, or reduce it further by shooting jpeg.

What is sRAW anyhow? a reduced quality raw file? what's the point? If you're going to shoot raw, it's b/c you want the most exposure latitude. If you don't care about that, shoot jpeg.
problem solved.

Nikon gave us a 35mm camera that outperforms most medium format cameras, AND it has a killer AF system. NONE of the MF cameras can autofocus to save their life, and they're all single point systems that introduce focus & recompose errors into the process (the new hasselblads even have yaw and tilt sensors to counteract this...all b/c they can't build a legitimate AF system).

I think nikon is giving people great offerings, and have no problem with their pro bodies.

I really don't care about their amateur bodies.

I think that 5D3's sensor is not as good as the D800/D600 but the fact it works it because it is very balanced. The sensor is more than adequate for ISO 3200 and some more, but the AF is far more reliable than the D800 and infinitely better than the sanitary pad in the D600/D610. It fits what is so important for events photography and is comparable to Nikon in studio conditions. Which is why it wins the D800 in desirability

That said, I think the 5D4 will look a lot like the D800. And I can only hope that the D900 will be comparable to the 5D series in AF and frame rates

the D800 is as good as, if not better, than the 5D3's AF system. The 5d3 doesn't user color to track. The D800 does. It has the EXACT same AF system as the D4, which is the best AF system on the market (better than the 1DX). The only difference is in frame rates. The left point AF issue has been fixed over a year ago. It's not an existing problem you can cite against the D800.
The 5D3 also still doesn't have an AF-assist light. The D800 can focus in near darkness w/o the AF-assist light. With the light, there are no limitations. With the 5d2 or 3, you need to rely an AF-assist beam from a speed light if you want to have a snowballs chance in hell of focusing during dancing photos.

I'm just finding it funny that people knock the AF system of the D800 and claim it's a 'still' photography camera, when it's AF system is more advanced than the 5D3. Sure, canon's line=up now has more cross=type AF points, but their continuous tracking AF modes leave a lot to be desired, not to mention there's no face-recognition.

I don't know what you mean by 'balanced', but a digital file showing banding and noise at iso 100 when pushed 2 stops is not my idea of 'balanced'.

You keep mentioning the D800. Did I miss something here? Did Nikon never make the D600 and turned a sure success into one of the biggest failures in history of DSLRs? Did I miss the time Nikon's mirrorless V1/J1 cameras got smoked by the likes of Fujifilm and Sony?

Nikon came out w/ the D610 less than a year after the D600 as a replacement to the problem. I'm not going to speculate on their reasons for creating a new camera other than the obvious massive loss of money and 'face' they would've incurred. But at least they fixed it.

Canon, on the other hand, knowingly crippled the 5D2 by releasing it w/ the same AF module as the 7 year old 10D, b/c they wanted to force people to buy their 'pro' body if they wanted an autofocus system that works.

It took them almost 4 years to 'fix' the abysmal AF performance of this camera. This fix came in the name of the 5D3, which is the same EXACT camera, same sensor, same dynamic range, just with a now-functioning AF module and increased in-camera RAW noise-reduction (hence the super 'clean' high ISO images which lack detail).

To top it off, they charged $1000 more for a camera that's functionally nothing more than the 5D2 w/ a new AF module. Everyone that purchased a 5D2 should've received a massive discount owing to the fact that they were duped into ownership of a camera with an utterly INFERIOR and EMBARRASSING AF module. Even the digital rebels had more cross-type AF points and a better AF system. The 5D3 is the first time EVER that canon hasn't crippled their pro-sumer body and have actually given it the same AF system as their pro body. Nikon's been doing it for years, and charging much, much less for better quality and reliability.

Once again, canon made an incremental release that was at the most basic level, another attempt to SPEND AS LITTLE MONEY in R&D and charge AS MUCH money as possible for marginal improvements.

Canon's behavior w/ their pro-bodies makes me FURIOUS.

The mark II lenses make me FURIOUS. Only a FOOL would pay nearly twice the price of the perfectly good mark I lenses for a sharpness increase that can be achieved in PS with a subtle unsharp mask.

So what are you complaining about?

that nikon released a superior camera in every respect, and it's $1000 less than canon's offering?

digital cameras make up a very small amount of nikon's business. The majority of their work is in specialist optics for science and technology. Considering how little money is invested into science and technology these days, it's no surprise that their stock prices are falling. Canon, on the other hand, is mainly a photography company. Despite what you may think, specialized optics represent a very small portion of their business.

Hey James,
Just a few notes:
- The 5D3 was $500 (3500) more than the D800 (3000) at launch, not $1000 more.
- Canon didn't trick people into getting poor AF on the 5D2...it just didn't have great AF. People knew what they were getting if they did any research or did any simple reading of the 5D2 specs page.
You also mention not putting the top focus system into a non-top camera as some sort of scam? I would call that market strategy in an effort to stay profitable. Maybe not my preference, but also not shady.
- You mention this $1000 figure a lot. Canon charged $500 more for the 5D3 vs. the 5D2 at launch. To me the improved AF was very much worth it. Also, the 5D1 was $3300 at launch. $3.3k->3k->3.5k

People vote with their wallets. A TON of people bought and loved the 5D2. Its inferior AF system was good enough. I like my 5D3. I wish it had crazy-Nikon-shadow-detail, but I like it and prefer it to the D800.

I do hope that Canon and Nikon (and Sony + 3rd party lens companies) continue to trade blows challenging the status quo, keeping features and prices competitive. Any way you look at it, camera technology improvements are continuing at quite a nice pace.

D700 had the same AF as the D3 and the D3S and the pro-series bodies are all faster in acquiring AF. Ditto D800 is also slower than the D4. They all use the same AF sensor but the processor they use affects their speed.

Initial reviews actually suggests D800 is slower to AF than the D700 because it is tuned for more accuracy for its 36mp. D700 is good in AF but not very impressive any more and from my experience, slow than the 5Dmk3

Irrelevant but 1Dx is positively faster than D4. Youtube has many instances of this I don't even want to talk about it.

AF assist light is well and good, and I like it for personal use, but no working photog will leave home without a speedlight attached on their camera. If anything its the pop up flash offering CLS that I really like about Nikon over Canon. And focussing in near darkness, I think you read that off the spec sheet because even if it does, it not going to be fast.

I own and use a D700 for work, I don't use any of that tracking thing and it may work for some kinds of photography but definitely doesn't work for events. One face is the same as the other in a mess of people mingling around and soon you'll be trying to track everyone.

And of course, cross types matters. I've already given up using external AF points on my D700 because they won't lock fast enough 90% of the time.

Lastly, who uses ISO 100 to push 2 stop? Its so off the chart I don't even have an analogy for it.

ergo Mk3 is better balanced in terms of reasonable file size, af speed, frame rate and still manages good IQ plus really silent shutter. D800 is superior in IQ but slower in AF and frame rate and kills your buffer, card and PC.

I would still be getting D800 as an upgrade but I would have preferred it if it had the D610 sensor instead.

like everyone else, you're basing your evaluation of the D800's AF performance off the outer focus point problems reported w/ the initial batches. Those problems have been fixed a year ago. 'initial reviews' are just that...long-term reviews and updated reviews are another thing.

I've seen TACK SHARP images from the D800 of people playing polo, using the 3D tracking mode you claim isn't effect. the point in using the face tracking isn't in shooting reception photos. no shit...brainiac. it's in accurately focusing at very shallow DOFs.

Pretty much anyone that knows how to use photoshop can explain to you the importance of being able to push files in post production, or pretty much anyone that shoots in harsh lighting conditions like you find at weddings, or anyone that shoots landscapes, or anyone that cares about dynamic range at all.

the diff b/t 4fps and 6 is moot. if you rly need FPS, you need a d4 or 1dx.

I refused to upgrade to the 5d3 simply on principle alone that it was too little, too late, for entirely too much money.

ever try to shoot a landscape with the sun almost gone?

ever try it w/a 5d2 or 3? you need to bring along a flashlight...b/c focusing in near darkness isn't going to happen w/ those cameras.

"why are you even comparing the d700 to the d800 at all?"
because you said D800 has the greatest AF by sharing the AF module with the D4. D700 and the D3 series use the same AF module as the D4 and D800. My point is the same module doesn't give you the same performance.

If you can't even get that, you're not worth talking to. I shall stop feeding the troll. Nice day.

I think it's funny that you're in denial. The proof is in the sales slump. Canon only had a 6% drop which is consistent with market saturation. For Nikon, the bottom fell out. If they have such great cameras that all the photographers want, that wouldn't happen. Would it? I used to like Nikon. They actually listened to photographers who wanted high ISO capabilities and not just to add megapixels. Now they don't even recall a camera that spits out dust.

Nikon, why did you release the Df that nobody would need? why didn't you just focus in upgrading your video capabilities and also the AF.

There are lots of options for folks whom don't need nor have the means to spend above $1000 for decent captures. Influence, especially the internet, has much to do with it, and as the uniformed or enthusiasts see quality from non-pro or entry level gear? It's not rocket science.

Unlike Canon, whom sells plenty of different products and keeps everything under one roof, Nikon is not in a good position to absorb this change. While I may crave a D800ish offer from Canon (and maybe their response to Sony's A7r), I still get work done with the current crop of tools.