Ever since Tamron first introduced a 28-200mm "all-in-one" lens in 1992, the interchangeable lens world has split into two camps: the all-in-oners versus the lens-for-the-needers. As I've been playing with the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 lately, I'm reminded that most of the world falls into the former camp: all-in-one lenses are the most popular options for DSLRs.
Nikon has sold, for example, something over 11 million 18-xx DX lenses in the five years they've been making them. That alone represents something near 40% of all lenses Nikon made during that period. Add in the 55-200mm and you've accounted for over half of the lenses made from 2005 through the end of 2010. Throw in the 70-300mm (both versions) and we've got another 1m lenses and are pushing 60% of the total. By way of contrast, the 24-70mm and 70-200mm, the two most popular high-end lenses, didn't come close to a 1m units between them. Many of the over 60 lenses in Nikon's current lineup sell only in the tens of thousands of units, and I'm pretty sure that Nikon would consider a lens that sells 100,000 units or more a "popular" lens (the 16-85mm is now over that hump).
The popularity of all-in-one lenses makes one wonder if a DSLR or even mirrorless camera needs a lens mount at all. The camera makers are essentially making cameras more flexible than the majority of the users need or use.
Of course, those same camera makers remember what happened to Olympus when they made the decision in the film days (1990-1999) to concentrate on the "ZLR", essentially an SLR without a lens mount but with a dedicated zoom (and eventually superzoom). So-called "bridge cameras" in the digital age haven't exactly proven to be mainstream popular, either. Still, when you look at the 30-300mm equivalent lens in the Coolpix 8100, you see echoes of the idea. Yet for some reason, once a camera gets to near DSLR size, the buyer wants a DSLR, even if all they ever do is slap an 18-200mm or 28-300mm lens on it.
It's easy for those of us who are serious about photography to forget just how much photography is done by all-in-oners and convenience photographers, and how much those masses dominate the thinking of the camera companies. As important and great as a D3s and 30+ specialized lenses are to us, a D3100 with an 18-55 and 55-200mm (or better yet an 18-200mm) is much more important to Nikon.
I've made this proposal before, and I make it again today: Nikon needs two imaging divisions: the cameras-for-masses division and the serious-photographer-niche division. As Leica's latest record breaking quarterly results indicate, there's plenty of money to be made in the serious niche, but you also have to have a better and closer relationship to those photographers. It's not surprising that Leica was the first to recognize that we need histograms from the raw data, for instance. Why hasn't that made it into a Nikon DSLR? Because they're too focused on the masses is my guess. Oh, we'll eventually get some more goodies (the D4 is coming, the D4 is coming...), but selling those through a company now focused on masses works less and less well the longer you do it. Nikon's setting themselves up to be sold primarily through Best Buy and Amazon and their own Nikon Mall, none of which is an optimal place to try and buy a D4.
So it's time, Nikon. Start by appointing two heads of cameras: one that takes (phone and) Coolpix through the D7000 and the all-in-one and consumer lenses, the other in charge of the D400 through D4 (and beyond) and the speciality lenses and accessories. Make it their job to get serious about doing the right thing for the two different customers.