Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sony to take over Nikon?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:32:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Knowing that Nikon's top model (D2X) is using a SONY image sensor and
looking at the statistics at dpreview, which shows SONY being slowly taking
over Nikon's second place behind Canon in customer interest (see
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp), I started thinking about the
future of Nikon's camera business. Success in the digital camera business is
more and more dictated by the quality and availability of the image sensor
and the electronics supporting it. Of course, good glass is still a great
plus, but optics is probably better understood than making top image sensors
(see the grim future of Leica). Now, how does Nikon rescue its business?
Trying to stay competitive with Canon? Hmm, does not look too good. -
Selling the camera business to SONY? Why not?

Gregor

More about : sony nikon

Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:32:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WA9Vd.1922$C47.1463@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Knowing that Nikon's top model (D2X) is using a SONY image sensor and
> looking at the statistics at dpreview, which shows SONY being slowly
> taking over Nikon's second place behind Canon in customer interest (see
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp), I started thinking about the
> future of Nikon's camera business. Success in the digital camera business
> is more and more dictated by the quality and availability of the image
> sensor and the electronics supporting it. Of course, good glass is still a
> great plus, but optics is probably better understood than making top image
> sensors (see the grim future of Leica). Now, how does Nikon rescue its
> business? Trying to stay competitive with Canon? Hmm, does not look too
> good. - Selling the camera business to SONY? Why not?
>
> Gregor
>
You're looking at a site that counts "clicks" on a Web site. How that
actually transfers to how well a company is doing I'm not sure. Generally,
any device as complicated as a digital camera is going to use components
manufactured by somebody else. Using your logic, Dell would be bought out
by Seagate, assuming they use mostly Seagate drives in their computers.

Canon, Nikon and Sony have been around for a long time. I seriously doubt
any one of them will be bought out by the other. And, you can't just look
at the surface. These companies have been finding their niches over the
years. Let's not forget that Nikon and Canon still sell a lot of 35mm and
specialized cameras, and before the consumer digital camera became popular
Sony was mostly known for excellence in professional video, not still
cameras.

Assuming you are right, Nikon would be selling out not because they have to,
but because they want to. I don't think they need to be "rescued."

BTW, if customer interest determined how well a company was doing, Ferrari
would be the largest automobile manufacturer in the world.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:20:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WA9Vd.1922$C47.1463@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Knowing that Nikon's top model (D2X) is using a SONY image sensor and
> looking at the statistics at dpreview, which shows SONY being slowly
> taking over Nikon's second place behind Canon in customer interest (see
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp), I started thinking about the
> future of Nikon's camera business. Success in the digital camera business
> is more and more dictated by the quality and availability of the image
> sensor and the electronics supporting it. Of course, good glass is still a
> great plus, but optics is probably better understood than making top image
> sensors (see the grim future of Leica). Now, how does Nikon rescue its
> business? Trying to stay competitive with Canon? Hmm, does not look too
> good. - Selling the camera business to SONY? Why not?
>
> Gregor
>
>Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi. I don't think Mitsubishi will let go of them
>very easily. Nikon is big in the DSLR market and Sony will love to be a
>source to sell millions of sensors to them.
John
Related resources
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:43:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Possible. Of course, Mitsubishi might just want to get the right price for
Nikon's camera division. After all, Nikon is not that big of an acquisition
and many companies have a huge pocket book (such as SONY) (see
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2005/finan... for
the finacial wealth of Nikon). Nikon's Coolpix business is a decent
competition to SONY's digicam business. And SONY is very strong selling
consumer electronics to end-users. Components, also an important part of
SONY, are most likely of secondary concern. We might see similar transitions
in the camera business like in the computer industry (see Digital ->
Compaq -> HP).

Gregor

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:6abVd.308478$w62.25429@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:WA9Vd.1922$C47.1463@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> Knowing that Nikon's top model (D2X) is using a SONY image sensor and
>> looking at the statistics at dpreview, which shows SONY being slowly
>> taking over Nikon's second place behind Canon in customer interest (see
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp), I started thinking about the
>> future of Nikon's camera business. Success in the digital camera business
>> is more and more dictated by the quality and availability of the image
>> sensor and the electronics supporting it. Of course, good glass is still
>> a great plus, but optics is probably better understood than making top
>> image sensors (see the grim future of Leica). Now, how does Nikon rescue
>> its business? Trying to stay competitive with Canon? Hmm, does not look
>> too good. - Selling the camera business to SONY? Why not?
>>
>> Gregor
>>
>>Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi. I don't think Mitsubishi will let go of them
>>very easily. Nikon is big in the DSLR market and Sony will love to be a
>>source to sell millions of sensors to them.
> John
>
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:59:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> You're looking at a site that counts "clicks" on a Web site. How that
> actually transfers to how well a company is doing I'm not sure.
> Generally,
> any device as complicated as a digital camera is going to use components
> manufactured by somebody else. Using your logic, Dell would be bought out
> by Seagate, assuming they use mostly Seagate drives in their computers.
>

A well-visited site can be a reasonable indicator. After all, Nikon sells to
end-users and most end-users buying digital cameras are also using computers
to browse the internet. Of course, dpreview is just one data point. But do
you know of one that shows Nikon ahead and Canon second? - BTW, Dell is
boxing PCs and sells them to end-users. They are not doing much R&D. Compaq
compared better to Nikon than Dell. And HP swallowed Compaq just recently
and almost suffocated in the progress.

> Canon, Nikon and Sony have been around for a long time. I seriously doubt
> any one of them will be bought out by the other. And, you can't just look
> at the surface. These companies have been finding their niches over the
> years. Let's not forget that Nikon and Canon still sell a lot of 35mm and
> specialized cameras, and before the consumer digital camera became popular
> Sony was mostly known for excellence in professional video, not still
> cameras.
>

Today, an great outfit can quickly become a buying target whether or not the
business is already around for the last 100 years. Today, I doubt that Canon
can (or wants to) purchase Nikon's camera group, although Canon's digital
camera effort is three times as big as the one Nikon has, if I remember this
correctly. SONY on the other hand is huge in the consumer electronics
business. To my knowledge, it is the only company that can actually develop
something the market does not ask for, but which often will be accepted by
the consumers after introduction. The others usually produce what the market
asks for, hence are market-driven companies.

> Assuming you are right, Nikon would be selling out not because they have
> to,
> but because they want to. I don't think they need to be "rescued."
>

Yes. That's probably correct. Nikon showed losses last year but seems to
recover.

> BTW, if customer interest determined how well a company was doing, Ferrari
> would be the largest automobile manufacturer in the world.
>
>

Can't follow this argument. I didn't buy a Ferrari but I bought four Nikon
cameras and many lenses.

Gregor
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 8:12:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Yes. That's probably correct. Nikon showed losses last year but seems to
> recover.
>
Just for clarification, Nikon had a net income last year but reported
ordinary income losses.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:56:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The high cost and low availability of image sensors and electronics is
a temporary problem. Sensors will be as cheap as er chips in a couple
of years time and Nikon will be making money just as they did with
film cameras. That is if they can survive without a full frame sensor.

Graham


"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WA9Vd.1922$C47.1463@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Knowing that Nikon's top model (D2X) is using a SONY image sensor and
> looking at the statistics at dpreview, which shows SONY being slowly
taking
> over Nikon's second place behind Canon in customer interest (see
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp), I started thinking about the
> future of Nikon's camera business. Success in the digital camera business
is
> more and more dictated by the quality and availability of the image sensor
> and the electronics supporting it. Of course, good glass is still a great
> plus, but optics is probably better understood than making top image
sensors
> (see the grim future of Leica). Now, how does Nikon rescue its business?
> Trying to stay competitive with Canon? Hmm, does not look too good. -
> Selling the camera business to SONY? Why not?
>
> Gregor
>
>
March 2, 2005 11:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"gsum" <gsum@bst.com> wrote in message
news:42256ffb$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
> The high cost and low availability of image sensors and electronics is
> a temporary problem. Sensors will be as cheap as er chips in a couple
> of years time and Nikon will be making money just as they did with
> film cameras. That is if they can survive without a full frame sensor.
>
A full frame sensor is a constant thread, but it's always wailed by people
who won't pay $10K plus for a dSLR. Even Canon is not heading for a full
frame sensor in their consumer/prosumer line. Ok a few amateurs have bought
1Dmk.II but the economy of scale is not likely in a full frame sensor, how
many units have to be made for the R&D costs and other factors to cause the
price to drop to the consumer level? If Canon were planning one why are they
producing more EF-S mounts lenses? APS-C is here to stay on the consumer
level.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 2:59:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <WA9Vd.1922$C47.1463@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> Knowing that Nikon's top model (D2X) is using a SONY image sensor and
> looking at the statistics at dpreview, which shows SONY being slowly taking
> over Nikon's second place behind Canon in customer interest (see
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stats.asp), I started thinking about the
> future of Nikon's camera business. Success in the digital camera business is
> more and more dictated by the quality and availability of the image sensor
> and the electronics supporting it. Of course, good glass is still a great
> plus, but optics is probably better understood than making top image sensors
> (see the grim future of Leica). Now, how does Nikon rescue its business?
> Trying to stay competitive with Canon? Hmm, does not look too good. -
> Selling the camera business to SONY? Why not?
>
Sony owning Nikon? Heaven forbid! Like the auto companies buying up the
public transportation network in Los Angeles, Nikon will disappear and
Sony will build over-priced cameras using Nikon technology and then add
a Sony sticker on the front.

Actually, this is a real short-sighted problem for many companies -
continual growth and market share are the twin gods of capitalism -
anything else is blasphemy. If a company is profitable, produces good
products and is well-liked by it's customers, why struggle to become
number one? Canon has 43% and Epson 42% of the market share for printers
in Japan. Should HP bankrupt itself trying to break into the Japanese
market of should it just stick with it's current US customers and hope
word of mouth will continue to find new customers? Leica is relying on
it's name to sell high-priced cameras - the Chanel or Nike of the photo
world. Not overly superior products, just a fancy name to hang round
your neck.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 7:59:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell <dev/null> wrote:

>"gsum" <gsum@bst.com> wrote in message
>news:42256ffb$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
>> The high cost and low availability of image sensors and electronics is
>> a temporary problem. Sensors will be as cheap as er chips in a couple
>> of years time and Nikon will be making money just as they did with
>> film cameras. That is if they can survive without a full frame sensor.
>>
>A full frame sensor is a constant thread, but it's always wailed by people
>who won't pay $10K plus for a dSLR. Even Canon is not heading for a full
>frame sensor in their consumer/prosumer line. Ok a few amateurs have bought
>1Dmk.II but the economy of scale is not likely in a full frame sensor, how
>many units have to be made for the R&D costs and other factors to cause the
>price to drop to the consumer level? If Canon were planning one why are they
>producing more EF-S mounts lenses? APS-C is here to stay on the consumer
>level.

Besides why must we stick with 35mm? That's what
"full frame" really refers to, right?

What some people want is a *larger* frame than
the current ones. They mistakenly talk about
"full frame".

Ansel Adams would have laughed. Full frame for
him during most of his productive life, would be
rather large indeed...

---- Paul J. Gans
March 5, 2005 6:53:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 0beam$h9h$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Besides why must we stick with 35mm? That's what
> "full frame" really refers to, right?
>
Owning a D70 (full frame APS size sensor) has given me a very practical
reason
for wanting a full-frame 35mm size sensor above and beyond keeping my 10
lenses
as useful as they've been in the past. I like to take some portraits in my
home...with
a background and studio flash. The best place to set up is in my living
room because
of the 12 ft ceilings and the archway opening into the dining room which is
where I
set up the backdrop. The problem I find is in the length of the room...it
isn't so long
that I can get more than maybe 3' between subject and backdrop and I want to
put
the backdrop out of focus (without digitally editing every photo I take).
That means
that I need a shallow depth of field...I'm sure you know that the shorter
the focal length
of the lens the greater the depth of field at any given aperture...so, I
need a longer and
faster lens. The problem with the smaller sensor is the crop factor means
that a shorter
lens would give me the magnification that I need, unfortunately it gives too
great a depth
of field. Everything worked fine with a 35mm size image. Now I need a
longer room.
You WILL see significant price increases on full frame sensors regardless of
whether or
not manufacturers sell tons of them BECAUSE price decreases come from more
than
just recouping R&D and tooling costs. They also come from process
improvements
that will come about on APS-size sensors and likely be applicable to the
manufacture of
other sensor sizes as well.


> What some people want is a *larger* frame than
> the current ones. They mistakenly talk about
> "full frame".
>
> Ansel Adams would have laughed. Full frame for
> him during most of his productive life, would be
> rather large indeed...
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
!