How Nikon Is Really Doing

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

A lot of rumors and speculation regarding sales and market share loss have
been floating about. Here's the data straight from Nikon's investor
relations site.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/po [...] maging.htm

For March, 2005, Nikon had projected sales of 6,600,000 digital cameras so
far in fiscal 2005, up from 5,400,000 for the same period in fiscal 2004.
They project 20% growth in 2006. Lens sales are up 50%.

Compare that to 310,000 film cameras, down from 680,000 in 2004. The
compact film business is also down 50% - which is not unlike every other
manufacturer.

But, revenues for the imaging division are up as well, with 355 billion yen
compared to 284 billion.

It is possible to lose market share while experiencing rapid growth. The
market is booming and everyone under the sun is entering the P&S market.
Here is what the President of the Nikon Imaging has to say about market
share:

"Nikon intends to launch an offensive with the aim of dominating the digital
SLR camera market with a share of 40% or more. In addition, Nikon will
endeavor to further bolster its product lineup, and enhance its already
formidable market position.

Finally, Nikon is #1 in the instrumentation business and dominates other
markets as well. Somehow, I don't think Nikon will be going under any time
soon and I don't think anyone need worry about long-term support or
innovation. Their R&D budget is up 20% from last year as well.

--
Walt Hanks

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

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:11:43 -0400, "Walt Hanks"
<walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>A lot of rumors and speculation regarding sales and market share loss have
>been floating about. Here's the data straight from Nikon's investor
>relations site.
>
>http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/business_info/imaging.htm
>
>For March, 2005, Nikon had projected sales of 6,600,000 digital cameras so
>far in fiscal 2005, up from 5,400,000 for the same period in fiscal 2004.
>They project 20% growth in 2006. Lens sales are up 50%.


Those figures hardly indicate a company in trouble.
>
>Compare that to 310,000 film cameras, down from 680,000 in 2004. The
>compact film business is also down 50% - which is not unlike every other
>manufacturer.
>
>But, revenues for the imaging division are up as well, with 355 billion yen
>compared to 284 billion.

That is a much higher margin business than cameras, particularly
PandS.
>
>It is possible to lose market share while experiencing rapid growth. The

So true in every high-growth market. The market segments and new
entrants target some underserved niche.

>market is booming and everyone under the sun is entering the P&S market.

It's fascinating to watch now "computer" companies are becoming
digital camera manufacturers while "film" camera companies are
struggling, with the exceptions of Nikon and Canon. the film
companies themselves are hurting big-time.

>Here is what the President of the Nikon Imaging has to say about market
>share:
>
>"Nikon intends to launch an offensive with the aim of dominating the digital
>SLR camera market with a share of 40% or more. In addition, Nikon will
>endeavor to further bolster its product lineup, and enhance its already
>formidable market position.

Nice, but what company president is going to say, "We are behind in
the market, our customers are leaving us in droves, and our
competitors have much better products that we do. And, we have no
intention to fix this situation." Any self-respecting president
would resign first. (exclude Enron, MCI, GM, Ford)

>
>Finally, Nikon is #1 in the instrumentation business and dominates other
>markets as well. Somehow, I don't think Nikon will be going under any time
>soon and I don't think anyone need worry about long-term support or
>innovation. Their R&D budget is up 20% from last year as well.

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

What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between
Nikon and Mitsubishi? Is Nikon effectively a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or do
they have one of those vague Japanese interlocking boards? This is
apparently not a new relationship with some evidence it dates back to WWII
years.
Has Sony bought into Nikon or is Sony merely a supplier of digital sensors
to Nikon?
And that garf about scientific instrumentation is a bit of an exaggeration.
Nikon is a major, but not indispensable, player in certain types of
microscopes, optical and digital, for laboaratory work but is non-player in
the more lucrative clinical medical fields. Leica is actually a major player
there but could easily be replaced by Zeiss, Olympus and a few other
vendors.

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

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:20:29 -0400, "Walt Hanks"
<walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:Sgdye.294$6%2.42@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between

>[snip]
>Let's see what the data indicates:
>
>Nikon has a 44% market share in IC steppers, a 22% market share in
>microscopes, and a 43% market share in measuring instruments. (BTW, every
>ENT office I've ever been in used either Nikon or Olympus surgical
>microscopes. My daughter had sinus surgery Friday and the surgeon used a
>Nikon there as well.)
>
>Their instrument sales went from 48 Billion Yen in 2004 to 55 Billion Yen in
>2005, and their precision equipment sales (mostly IC steppers) went from 158
>to 230 Billion Yen.
>
[snip, snip, snip ...]
>Walt
>

Nothing personal about Walt, but why does any of this matter to
_photographers?_


I'm a Nikon user (full disclosure) but frankly, I'm getting a bit
tired of these incessant Nikon vs Canon "nyah, nyah" discussions. How
much does it matter? If I am a very happy Canon owner, do I have to
get upset if Nikon's new D2X is described by some reviewers as good as
the greatest-and-greatest Canon body? Or if I am a happy Nikon user,
do I care if Canon's L lenses are "better" in some way? As a
Nikon/Canon user, am I here to proselytize (spelling?) all the
"benighted" Pentax and Olympus users? Do I get a brownie point every
time one of them switches to Canon/Nikon?

Sheesh, people. What really matters?

Are we here to discuss photography or are we a debating/flaming group
here?

In other words, what is the charter of this and related groups?

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

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:

> Brand loyalty matters.

Indeed it does: this is why the Stacey's, the Polson's, the george's,
and the rest of the Nikon Nutcases are so desperately connected to the
photographic market. It isn't the actual, physical, product that
matters or what it does, or how well it does it: it's the name, it's
the box, it's the packaging material, it's the press releases, it's the
advertising, it's the promotional aparatus.

We know this is all true because nothing drives these people more crazy
than some irreverent Canon user who rattles their cages with outrageous
"Canon gear is _superior_" commentary. They know in their heart of
hearts it is true, but the dissonance potentials are just too
destabilizing for them to bring the concept into full cognition. So
when the despicable heresy materializes on their displays, they are
reduced to apopleptic incoherency. They can only babble senseless
about the glory-days, the by-gone era of the 1970's and 1980's when
everything was Black.

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

Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Brand loyalty matters.
>>
>>
>> Indeed it does: this is why the Stacey's, the Polson's, the
>> george's, and the rest of the Nikon Nutcases are so desperately
>> connected to the photographic market. It isn't the actual,
>> physical, product that matters or what it does, or how well it does
>> it: it's the name, it's the box, it's the packaging material, it's
>> the press releases, it's the advertising, it's the promotional
>> aparatus. We know this is all true because nothing drives these
>> people more
>> crazy than some irreverent Canon user who rattles their cages with
>> outrageous "Canon gear is _superior_" commentary. They know in
>> their heart of hearts it is true, but the dissonance potentials are
>> just too destabilizing for them to bring the concept into full
>> cognition. So when the despicable heresy materializes on their
>> displays, they are reduced to apopleptic incoherency. They can
>> only
>> babble senseless about the glory-days, the by-gone era of the
>> 1970's
>> and 1980's when everything was Black.
>>
>
> What *I* like about Canon, a short list just off the top of my
> HAIYUD:
>
> 1) They make good gear, in spite of their obvious marketing to the
> moron demographic.
>
> You see? Rational, sensible debate is EASY.

What I like about NIKON:

Nice OPEN straight lines and no BROKEN CIRCLES such as you see in
CANON

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

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:36:32 +0900, Deedee Tee <abuse@localhost>
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 16:15:46 GMT, "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net>
>wrote:
>
>>What we really want to know is what is the corporate relationship between
>>Nikon and Mitsubishi? Is Nikon effectively a subsidiary of Mitsubishi or do
>>they have one of those vague Japanese interlocking boards? [..]
>
>Does this have any relevance to us as photographers or buyers of
>equipment? Pardon me if I am wrong, but I don't see any.


I agree. It doesn't, unless you're trying to do business in Japan,
where corporate relationships and personal relationships are key. Ask
David who lives in Tokyo. And there is nothing like an
after-work-hours visit to a karioke bar with your Japanese business
colleagues, any of whom can easily drink you under the table.

Kompai!

Father

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

Father Kodak <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

> I'm a Nikon user (full disclosure) but frankly, I'm getting a bit
> tired of these incessant Nikon vs Canon "nyah, nyah" discussions. How
> much does it matter? If I am a very happy Canon owner, do I have to
> get upset if Nikon's new D2X is described by some reviewers as good as
> the greatest-and-greatest Canon body? Or if I am a happy Nikon user,
> do I care if Canon's L lenses are "better" in some way? As a
> Nikon/Canon user, am I here to proselytize (spelling?) all the
> "benighted" Pentax and Olympus users? Do I get a brownie point every
> time one of them switches to Canon/Nikon?
>
> Sheesh, people. What really matters?
>
> Are we here to discuss photography or are we a debating/flaming group
> here?

I almost bought a Brownie Hawkeye at a thrift store the other day, to
start my inevitable slide into medium format. But since that's obviously
an obsolete media, and since there's no speed winder or consumer-level
wide-angle zoom for it, and since Brownie stock performance in the past
couple months have been less than stellar, I'll just have to make do
with my Pentax DSLR.