My comments on the D3200 and 28mm lens announcements provoked a deal of feedback, enough that I think I need to make a few of my thoughts more clear.
Nikon is a camera company, first and foremost. Nikon's continued success as a company now depends upon how they do in the camera business. That's because two-thirds of their sales and a similar high degree of their profits come from cameras. Nikon is unique amongst the Japanese manufacturers in that. While cameras have produced some of the largest profits for other companies (e.g. Canon), no other Japanese camera producer is dependent upon cameras as their main business. Not Canon, not Sony, not Panasonic, not Olympus, not Ricoh/Pentax, not Fujifilm. Those companies all have much larger businesses that have nothing to do with cameras, even when you add in incendental-to-photography products (pro video divisions, etc.).
Overall, the "camera business" is flat. There's almost no one predicting any meaningful overall growth in cameras, mainly because cell phones now account for a majority of "camera" sales and use. Yes, there are pockets of growth, such as mirrorless (essentially higher end compacts or smaller/lighter DSLRs depending upon how you look at them). But even factoring the mirrorless growth in, all you get is a flat market.
Nikon has four lines of cameras: Coolpix, CX (Nikon 1), DX, and FX. All need to be successful for them. Overall, Nikon produces a bit over 20 million units (cameras, lenses) a year at the moment, and they've actually looked like a growth company in a flat market (thus, they're stealing market share), and that's despite the quake and flood. That's been an incredible achievement.
Nikon's recent success does bring up some questions, though. They've had a string of body hits (D3, D3s, D4, D300, D7000, D700, D800) at one end, solid perennial sellers at the other (D3100, D5100, a number of Coolpix), and even the unusual Nikon 1 has done okay for them, at least dulling the m4/3 and NEX mirrorless juggernauts temporarily. But as I've noted many times, supply is not meeting demand for many items, and that's a dangerous proposition as you always leak sales to competitors when that happens. Nikon is fortunate that the Canon 5DIII didn't push the bar particularly far forward from the II, but I'm still sure that a few potential D800 sales turned into 5DIII sales because of supply issues.
Lack of lenses is one of those supply issues. Both CX and DX are impacted by this (CX in lack of lenses that competitors already have, DX in lack of lenses that users want). Personally, I judge this to be one of Nikon's biggest problems: users are buying bodies on faith that lenses will appear. That faith has not been rewarded lately, especially for DX users. Consider the DX lens announcements over the last two-and-a-half years: 40mm Micro-Nikkor, 85mm Micro-Nikkor, 55-300mm. Did that round out the offerings for DX users particularly well? Not at all. Indeed, it's puzzled the DX users completely and sent them to third-party lenses.
I have this fear about Nikon: that they believe that their recent results reflect right decisions. It's always dangerous to equate "more sales" with "right decisions." While Nikon's DX and FX bodies have been quite good as of late, these are systems cameras, and bodies can't stand alone for long. Thus, we can extend my fear to this: that Nikon thinks the system is okay because the bodies are selling well.
We'll know later this year what Nikon is up to in DX. The overdue D300s replacement is a critical clue (a D5200 is as predictable as the D3200 was). But the clues we've gotten so far aren't exactly encouraging:
- CX was crippled from the start. The removal of controls that might appeal to enthusiasts and the Coolpix-like marketing messages all seem to point to a design decision that goes like this: it's an all-automatic Coolpix type of camera but with focus and low light performance. Oh, and some lenses.
- DX stopped growing with the D300s. 2009 was the last big push in DX. In the 2008/2009 time period we got the 16-85mm, 18-105mm, 35mm, 10-24mm, redesigned 18-200mm, and the strange 85mm Micro-Nikkor. The D300s itself is now a year overdue for replacement. The D3000/D5000/D90 line made the expected move to D3100/D5100/D7000, and has started the expected move to D3200/D5200/D7200, but this is just basically "rising with the tide." A simple DX line that consists of only three consumer DSLRs would be a serious mistake.
- FX has gotten super serious, except for some lenses that look like they're targeted for something else. Love the D4 and D800 (so far ;~), but how to explain the 28-300mm or even 24-120mm, let alone the upcoming 24-85mm vari-aperture? Is Nikon's notion that you should put compromised lenses on uncompromised bodies? This (plus the inexpensive 28mm f/1.8G) argues that there is a missing FX model, possibly an FX D400 that replaces the DX D300s and FX D700.
Yuck. The net net of all that, if I'm right, is that Nikon sees a Coolpix user growing into a CX user growing into a DX user growing into an FX user. What's wrong with that, you ask? Nothing as a secondary strategy, but everything as a primary strategy. Not all camera users upgrade upwards. Some just want a product that works at the size/weight they desire.
I'm a believer in "best possible product." You can still upsell from a great Coolpix or Nikon 1 or DX DSLR. Bigger sensors have real advantages, and physics isn't going to change in your or my lifetime to disrupt that. I don't believe you should compromise a product line in order to have a "more natural upsell." A more natural upsell is simple: you make the best products, at all levels. Compromising any product at any level in order to make a higher end product more enticing is just wrong thinking. If you compromise DX, don't you think the customer will wonder if you've compromised FX, too?
What Nikon needs are uncompromised Nikon 1 models that are the model of choice for anyone who decides they want a small, mirrorless camera. They need uncompromised DX models that are the model of choice for someone who needs a higher end system but can't afford FX. And those uncompromised cameras need a full line of lenses and accessories that are uncompromised, too.
Apple doesn't care if you buy an iPod Touch, an iPhone, an iPad, a MacBook Air, or a higher end Mac. They only care that you buy an Apple. They know if they give you a great product at the level you buy at, you'll come back to them when you have a different need.
Nikon does seem to care what you buy. If you're an enthusiast, Nikon has one Coolpix for you (P7100), no mirrorless camera for you, and a range of four DX cameras, the highest end of which is sadly outdated and most with significant limitations...but the FX D800 seems like what they really want you to buy. If you're a pro, Nikon wants you to buy an FX body only (sorry about that Bob Krist). No, Nikon's strategy isn't to sell you the great camera you want/need, but to direct you to a line of cameras that they've decided you should want, even if the accessories you might need/want aren't available.
The good news for Nikon is that no other camera maker has figured it out, either. Sony has decided that EVFs are your only choice. Canon decided that all still users were actually closet videographers in disguise. Fujifilm seems to think that lots of performance issues can be overlooked if they just make everything look like old rangefinders from the 1960's. But really, Nikon, is that all you aspire to be: better than an inept group of other players?
Industry in crisis (camera sales are flat at best) is the perfect time to execute perfectly. Basically, you end up owning the market when you do that. To keep growing, Nikon is going to need to own the camera market. To do that they need no compromise systems at all four levels. At the moment, they only have that at one level, FX.
And if you don't believe me, perhaps this reader comment will prove my point: "I cling to my D80. I have the money to upgrade/update (this only happens every five years or so), and I love the D7000, but I won't spend it until I have clarity on Nikon's commitment to DX -- or until I decide to switch brands, probably to Olympus mirrorless." That's not the only such response I received, and it's highly indicative of what's happening when users think about DX these days. Nikon has a problem with DX (and CX). The customers are aware of it. Is Nikon?