I'm not expecting a DX camera body announcement in the Photokina run-up, but can't rule one out. I'm sure we will get a couple of DX bodies updated in the next six months, though.
But that (lack of updated bodies) is not the problem. The problem is that Nikon sees DX differently than many of its customers. With the pro gear having moved to FX in 2007, this is now more obvious than ever: Nikon apparently sees DX as only for those consumer folk that buy 1.5 lenses, both of which will be convenience zooms.
Of course, Nikon can look to their sales numbers and say "see, we're right," as Nikon has sold a boatload of DX bodies and convenience zooms (as has Canon). The problem is that Nikon simply doesn't see nor cater to the serious photographer who wants a smaller and lighter, but still pro caliber, set up. Ironically, they did just that in 2007 with the launch of the D300. But here it is five years later and we're in "what have you done for us lately" mode.
Worse still, Nikon doesn't seem to see the serious "reach market" (wildlife, predominately, but also some sports) nor the serious "smaller than those heavy FX bodies" market. Thus, there's not a lot of emphasis on a D300s replacement, a 16-50mm f/2.8 and 50-150mm f/2.8 DX lens set, a 16-80mm f/4 VR DX, a full set of DX primes, or any of the other things that a large number of DX users have been patiently waiting for.
Meanwhile, the m4/3 market has the OM-D, a 12-35mm f/2.8 soon to be joined by a 35-100mm f/2.8, and a full set of primes. Guess which system these serious photographers are moving to when they want smaller/lighter, but still serious cameras?
This week's Business Week had two quotes that resonated while I was thinking about Nikon's DX lineup, one of which I had forgotten, the other of which was new. Let's deal with the new quote first, from Sony CEO Kazuo Hirai: "let's see if we can come out with products that fundamentally change consumer behavior." Uh, no. The goal shouldn't be specifically to change consumer behavior. The mark of great products is to enable new consumer behaviors that consumers didn't realize they wanted or needed, not just change their behavior by brute force.
In the DX context, Nikon (and Canon) believes that they already changed consumer behavior: they've delivered convenience cameras with good performance, but which are based upon legacy designs. In short, they successfully navigated the film SLR to digital SLR transition. Okay, so now what, just keep forcing more of the same down the user's throats?
The second quote was originally a Steve Jobs quote being re-iterated by Bob Iger, the Disney CEO: "there's [sic] brand deposits and brand withdrawals." By this, Jobs meant that when a brand does something positive in the customer view it will add to brand value, but when a company does something negative or fails to correct something it decreases the company's brand value.
So let's tally up Nikon's deposits and withdrawals as of late:
- The Positive Deposits: A solid pro and FX camera line (e.g. D800 and D4 on the heels of D700, D3, D3s, D3x), with multiple models and supported with lenses, with more about to come (e.g. D600); a quick and strong response to rebuild both the Thailand and Sendai plants after natural disasters; the D3200 imaging sensor.
- The Negative Withdrawals: Coolpix that have become ubiquitous lowest common denominators and shelf space discount fodder; a unacknowledged quality control problem with one of their positives (D800); lack of expansion of the DX line with products desired by the long-term and loyal customers; in the US a D800 survey that most customers couldn't fill out; another new OS launch (or two) without Nikon software keeping up.
- The indeterminate: the Nikon 1, especially considering the one year follow-up announcements. The Nikon 1 has some positives (phase detect autofocus on sensor, the FT1 use of existing Nikkors), and some negatives (small sensor size and pixel count, high price, etc.)
Given that DX is a primary breadwinner for Nikon (FX is a halo product for the overall brand as well as a significant profit producer, but not the primary sales producer), you'd think that they'd be trying to make more brand deposits there.
But I think the real issue comes back to Hirai's quote: the Japanese camera companies think they know what's best for the users (I'm tempted to add "and herd them like cattle," but I won't ;~). I think they're wrong in this, particularly in the case of Nikon's recent treatment of DX. Let me put it this way, is a BMW 3 series a different brand statement than the BMW 5 series? No. But Nikon is slowly trying to make four different brand statements (Coolpix, 1, DX, and FX). That approach won't win the day in the long run.
The irony is that it really would only take three or four specific products to completely change the tide in DX (high spec body update, wide angle prime, fast constant aperture mid-range and telephoto zooms). Those aren't in replacement of anything. They don't really take sales away from anything else. They reward long term customers. They build long-term brand equity.
So I have a new metric I'll be using with upcoming announcements: brand deposit or brand withdrawal? The J2 and Coolpix S610 announced last week? Brand withdrawals. Let's hope Nikon can do better in the coming weeks' announcements.