Brief Speculations on Nikon and Mirrorless

Written by Eamon Hickey

There's been a bit of buzz in the past week over Nikon's future plans for mirrorless cameras. The good folks at Digital Photography Review even managed to wrangle an official statement from Nikon that the company is "currently developing new mirrorless products," although no details were provided, of course. Three random points on this general topic have been circulating in my mind recently, and I feel like getting them off my chest…er, mind…whatever!

1.) In the general Internet commentary, there seem to be two factions regarding the lens mount. Some want a Nikon mirrorless lineup that uses the current F-mount, ensuring the continued usability of the 100 million or so Nikon F-mount lenses still focusing light in the world. Others insist that Nikon should not cling to "old" technology and instead go with a new mount that specifies a shorter distance from lens flange to focal plane (a.k.a. flange back distance), which will allow somewhat smaller (mostly thinner) cameras for those, like me, who wish photography was less burdensome. Literally.

I honestly think this one is pretty easy to predict: Nikon will do both. (Same for Canon, by the way.) It's the only believable business decision. So my prediction is that by some point in the not-too-distant future there will be Nikon mirrorless camera models, including full frame 35mm models, that natively use the F-mount and other Nikon mirrorless models that use a new mount with a shorter flange back that can work with both APS-C and FF sensors. Of course, there will also be an adapter (or adapters) to stick F-mount lenses on the new mount bodies. (Nikon already has a fully modern short-flange-back mirrorless lens mount for the Nikon 1 series cameras, but that lineup is clearly not, nor was it ever intended to be, the platform for future success in the higher-end interchangeable-lens camera segment, a segment that Nikon must aggressively pursue.)

The fully waterproof AW1, usable underwater, is part of Nikon's
mirrorless 1-series of consumer 1" cameras

It should go without saying that Nikon will also continue to develop and sell DSLRs as long as there is a healthy market for them. (DSLR sales are, for the time being, still much bigger than mirrorless ILC sales.) This approach has some definite drawbacks—market confusion and effort fragmentation being the biggest—but all the alternatives will be judged by Nikon to have even greater drawbacks. I'm pretty convinced of that.

Canon will do this, too. They are already halfway there with the EF-M mount. There will be native EF-mount mirrorless cameras alongside the current EF-M mount mirrorless cameras and almost certainly even FF EF-M mirrorless cameras, eventually.

In a way, Sony already does this—the short-flange-back mirrorless E-mount supports both APS-C and FF cameras, and Sony also continues to support the old (Minolta) SLR A-mount with cameras that, while they still have a vestigial mirror, are, in fact, electronic viewing cameras and operate like mirrorless models in every important way except their autofocus system.

2.) Now, some people at this point will posit that Nikon can't afford a development effort like the one I'm describing. But that's just not true, which is easy to see if you take the time to read Nikon's financial statements and know a little about how to understand them. Nikon has a lot of cash and a healthy balance of assets and equity versus debt—in plain language, they are worth a lot more than they owe. Nikon could spend $1 billion (with a "b"!) on R&D tomorrow and still have a very solid solvency profile. (Their equity ratio, one common indicator of solvency, which is now about 50%, would still be about 35–40%, much better than either Sony or Panasonic, for example. Speaking loosely, anything above 20% is considered solid.) And a billion dollars is way more than enough to develop several mirrorless camera systems, plus, oh, I don't know, a talking toaster. Nikon does have important long-term growth and profitability worries, but that's not the same thing as current financial troubles, and it's also not the topic of this ramble of mine.

3.) Finally, a lot of people are convinced it's too late. Game over. Ship sailed. Other people, including Thom Hogan in a comment at Nikon Rumors, have explained why that's not necessarily true at all. I'll just add my two cents that I think that many people overestimate the value of being a first-mover in a market. There are literally thousands of examples of latecomers succeeding, and even overtaking, the early birds. There's a huge example just in the recent digital camera era: Canon was very late to embrace digital cameras seriously and badly trailed the market behind Sony and Olympus (the big first-movers), and even Nikon (the third mover). I well remember the "dinosaur Canon is doomed!" wailings on the Internet in 1999/2000. Then the dinosaur bestirred itself and started moving, and it crushed everyone under its big dinosaur feet, dominating all levels of the standalone digital camera business for almost 15 years now. I could cite many other examples (for many companies, not just Canon) over the course of camera business history.

Now, it's obviously true that you can't catch up if you execute badly. For those anxious to comment thusly, I'll say it again: yes, catching up is a challenge, and bad execution will doom the effort. I'm not overlooking that little wrinkle. So that's the crux of the matter. If Nikon (and Canon) want to do really well in mirrorless cameras, it's not too late, but they do need to execute well. (Canon is actually already doing decently well with its EF-M cameras, especially in Asia.) Maybe they won't execute well. Nikon in particular has had a few bad strikeouts lately, to be sure. But they have a perfectly good chance, if—note the "if"—they do the job right.

On the question of whether they will in fact do it right, my prediction machine is broken.

Eamon

Longtime camera industry analyst Eamon Hickey is a Contributing Editor of TOP.

©2017 by Eamon Hickey, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Got a minute?
Give us a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dennis: "I think you (and Thom) make sense saying it's not too late, but Nikon's running out of time to make any mistakes. (I think Nikon 1 was poorly conceived as a half high-end, half dumbed-down hybrid that was too expensive for its sensor size. I also think Sony, Olympus and Panasonic all did mirrorless poorly with their initial systems aimed at 'point-and-shoot upgraders' but had time to pivot).

"I'm not so convinced on what we'll see in the way of a mount. I would expect to see either F mount or something that works seamlessly with F mount (a really well done adapter solution) but have a little bit of a hard time seeing them do a new mount with new lenses. Recent new F mount lenses look like they're geared towards mirrorless use.

"Any take on the likelihood of seeing IBIS incorporated in future mirrorless models (now that other brands' 'dual IS' is getting rave reviews)? In the past, IBIS might have seemed like an admission by Nikon or Canon that lens-based IS might not be superior. But now the IBIS manufacturers also offer lens IS (and make the two work together)...and IBIS makes more sense with live view where it stabilizes the viewfinder image (where only lens IS does that in a DSLR). It seems like if they had any thought of doing IBIS, a new mirrorless system might be the right time/place for it. The problem I see is that they have excellent lens-based VR already and might have to pay to license IBIS patents from Sony and/or Olympus."

rosuna: "Hello Eamon: Early birds have to invest a lot in R&D and assume a lot of risks. Late comers show up when all technologies are mature, the costs are low and the risks are negligible. Any company can develop a mirrorless system now with a low investment effort and an assured level of quality, just using standard components.

"For Canon and Nikon mirrorlesses are only a part of the cake. They will go for it, minimizing risks and investment. At this moment there is not much income in the camera business. The most innovative companies are forced to do that, or disappear. The big ones' strategy is to preserve. The mirrorless systems by Canon and Nikon will be deployed slowly, in a conservative way, without innovations, looking at particular market niches. Well made products, but unexciting."

Ilkka: "Re 'Canon was very late to embrace digital cameras seriously.' Really? I thought their D30. (Or was it 30D?) was among the first 'serious' consumer DSLRs on the market? And the 1Ds among the first full frame pro bodies? They did lag badly in mirrorless but I think in DSLRs they have always been quite advanced."

Eamon replies: Yep, really. It's a tangent to the point I was making, but many people nowadays are understandably surprised by it. So just for the record, here's what the Chairman and CEO of Canon said about it in an article in Electronic Engineering Times in May, 2000: "Canon introduced a digital still camera in the early '80s, but it was too early and was not successful," said Fujio Mitarai, president of Canon. "Since then, we have been concentrating on analog cameras and have let our competitors get ahead in the digital still camera market. But while we were behind, we used the time to develop key components, and now our digital still camera strategy is in good shape," he said.

The digital camera business really started getting serious in 1997, with Sony and Olympus way out in front of everybody else; Canon didn't get into the top four until 2001. So strange as it may seem, Canon napped through the first few years of the biggest market shift in at least the last 100 years in the camera business. But Mitarai was 100% right about their ability to come roaring back. They took the lead in 2002 and have never lost it.

Comments

[Jackson Bart]

Nikon already has mirrorless cameras, and they were intentionally designed to be uncompetitive so they wouldn't cannibalize more profitable DSLR sales.

Even though, theoretically, Nikon could make a huge R&D push into a new mirrorless system with larger sensors, I don't see any evidence that they've changed their corporate philosophy.

[JasonHindleUK]

Olympus had a very small digital system at the point Canon stirred. Now look at the Micro Four Thirds and Fuji systems of today. These are substantially complete systems, with a strong community of users these companies could only have dreamed of in the early naughties.

That said, the idea that it is somehow game over for CaNikon is of course absurd.

[Omer]

My take on this has been for Nikon to retain the F mount. But considering the convergence of still photography with video, a new mount that would allow the use of the increasingly popular short flange third party video lenses does makes sense.

[Longviewer]

See how foresighted the K-01 was? Mirrorless, K-mount friendly, huge battery, all that good stuff. Really sold great, too.. once it fell to $300 :¬(

Also note its size compared to the GX8 while reading of all its disadvantages.

[Craig Yuill]

Nikon has the ability to shine, if not dominate, in the mirrorless segment. For over 4 1/2 years I have been using the Nikon V1 and a variety of CX-mount lenses. It has been a fine system, hampered by inconsistent UI and design changes and a less-than-stellar Aptina sensor. Nonetheless, the V1 has been my most used camera these past 4 1/2 years because it is both a capable stills and video camera. (Nikon DSLRs are great stills cameras but suck when it comes to video AF.) I am currently editing a video of a recent family trip with clips taken with the V1. A V-series camera that combined the best attributes of the V1, V2, and V3, along with an up-to-date Sony sensor, EVF, standard hot shoe, and IBIS would be a formidable 1" mirrorless camera.

I think that F-mount mirrorless cameras are a given, especially now that the mirrorless-friendly AF-P 70-300mm FX lens has been introduced. It is possible that Nikon could create a new mirrorless mount. But Nikon could also possibly keep the CX mount, using it with a larger sensor. Thom Hogan mentioned a few times that there is talk that the CX mount could support a sensor with a crop factor of 1.7, which is pretty close to the DX/APS-C crop factor of 1.5. It is possible that the CX mount could be used to support the larger sensor and allow usage of DX and FX lenses through an FT-1-style adapter. I have used the FT-1 to mount mostly telephoto lenses to my V1, and it works quite well (albeit only allowing me to use the central AF sensor).

[Daniel]

Kieth Canham, Richard Ritter, the fine folk at Linhof and many others make beautiful mirrorless cameras and have for a long time now. My favorite mirrorless 8x10 Deardorff was made in 1949 and the 5x7 was made in 1926. Hundreds of lenses fit them. They will take images ever bit as good as I am able to find.

[Max Cottrell]

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future" -- Yogi Berra

[David]

Sounds like the same path as Olympus / Panasonic from 4/3rds to M43rds. Many years later many folk are still using the original lenses, designed for cameras with a mirror.

[Mark]

I agree with everything you say, sir. But the other day I saw a pic, I believe it was in The NY Times but I may be mistaken. This particular pic spoke volumes, spoke at incredibly loud volume. It was of a senator in Washington making an announcement possibly about the recently proposed health care law. The pic was taken from the profile and in the background was at least 5 to 7 journalists also snapping away, taking the senator's picture. Not only were they not using DSLRs, they weren't using mirrorless either. No, they were all, each and every one, using their iPhones.
Now, possibly a poor segue, you be the judge, but apropos I believe. Recently visited one of the few remaining high end audio-video salons in NYC. The demo my son, 31 yrs old, my daughter, 27 yrs old, and I listened to consisted of Wilson's Alexandria speakers, speaker cables as fat as elevator cables, a "cheap" $30,000 turntable, and amps that look,like they could power a neighborhood. After listening for about 20 minutes we were leaving. The salesman, as we entered the elevator to ascend from the basement showroom to the first floor (there was no available staircase) said, do you mind if I ask you a quick question, addressing himself to my children. Sure, they said. He said, did you two acquire your dad's hobby as an audiophile? As they were placing their white Apple earbuds in. They looked at him like he was nuts.

[Gordon Lewis]

I see two major questions arising from this discussion: The first is not just whether Nikon will introduce a mirrorless camera, but whether it will do so soon enough and well enough to prevent existing users from buying a competitor's mirrorless alternative or abandoning Nikon entirely. The second question is whether said camera will be attractive to people who are new to interchangeable lens photography (i.e., iPhone users). Based on Nikon's history and most recent performance, they will be able to produce hardware that addresses the first question but not the software necessary to appeal to the second group.

[Robert]

Funny thing. Until only a couple of days ago many has seen Nikon as nearly finished, dead duck. Then Nikon issued a vague statement and suddenly there is positive 'geist', all the nervous bashing forgotten. All the pundits knew it all along of course, the few not quite negative articles from Thom Hogan are being re-read, the other articles are forgotten...
To make photographs, we have already everything we need and more. No new camera necessary for color or B&W. It does not matter what Nikon (or Canon or whoever) is going to make - it will be good, better than anybody among us needs or can use. Really use. There will not be one single camera with all the features we talk about, it will cost more than we would like and it never will be the perfect camera to Mike, Thom and me equally. Even with a 'perfect' camera, we would try hard if necessary and find a problem or two. No problem. 😉

[Oskar Ojala]

I agree with your analysis on the market situation and whether the game is now over for new entrants or not. However, from a users standpoint the status quo is manageable: three real mirrorless systems, each with their strengths and weaknesses. Canon is likely to slowly build a system around its mirrorless and Nikon will do the same with a new, larger sensor mirrorless. The questions that I have can the market support all these brands and what does it mean for users?

Fur users, multiple incompatible brands that are more or less equal is not a desirable proposition when the investment to a system is done over a multi year period. At least we have companies like Sigma that even out lens options across mounts, but it would be desirable to have some level of standardization.

[Ed]

Who cares what mirrorless Nikon makes next. If you don't have a digital Nikon or otherwise camera with which you're able to take the pictures you want, you should take up fishing or macramé!

greets, Ed.

[Terry Manninhg]

Apple has made a fortune by entering markets after watching and learning from the mistakes made by pioneers.

Does that mean I believe Nikon will learn the lessons to be learned from others? Maybe.

Will Nikon make the mirrorless camera all those lessons would seem to indicate people want? Maybe.

Will anyone be able to afford it, or more importantly, WANT to pay for it? That's the real dilemma for Nikon and anyone else.

Sony (A9) and Olympus (M1 Mark II) have made the best mirrorless cameras YET and all people can talk about are the lack of a lens lineup and professional support (Sony) and price and sensor size (Olympus).