14 ms·

Oof, that's not a good sign. For me, Japan is the place for the best camera and lens manufacturing. Most of the makers seem to split their manufacturing between

Oof, that's not a good sign. For me, Japan is the place for the best camera and lens manufacturing. Most of the makers seem to split their manufacturing between Japan for their quality models/lenses and cheaper countries for the consumer stuff, which I think is a valid compromise. But this feels short-sighted on Nikon's part and rather like they have already failed. Perhaps instead of relocating their production they should re-evaluate their business model; my dad ended up swapping to Fuji after ~40 years of Nikon after his last camera failed and they treated him like crap as he tried to get it repaired. In contrast I bought an 11 year-old second-hand Canon DSLR which needed a new shutter mechanism and Canon Japan found an out-of-production replacement in their warehouse and shipped it to my repairer immediately. I've always found Nikon to be lacking in competitive models with Canon in the places that count. Canon frequently make lenses of the same focal length but for different budgets, e.g. they have 4 70-200mm models. Nikon's range has always been weirdly spotty, with some excellent lenses at the high end but weird gaps elsewhere. Tangentially, I recently bought a superb Sigma lens and was happy to see that it was actually still made in Japan as well; I thought all the third-party lens makers had moved abroad, but surprisingly a number of them are still there. I was also very happy to discover that Canon promotes wildlife reserves around its factories and headquarters. It's nice to see a company that reflects some of its customers' interests: https://global.canon/en/environment/bird-branch/index.html https://global.canon/en/environment/bird-branch/index.html

hef19898 6y ago
Cameras =!= Lenses. I always found Nikon cameras more my taste than canon. But that is just taste, in terms of quality, in the sense of the pictures, I never saw a difference. Not back the day when we still developed our black and white pictures ourselves and not now with digital cameras. Lenses on the other hand a different thing altogether. There I saw defferences between the "cheaper" Sigma and the premium Nikkor ones. Not always but sometimes. I would assume that the new mirrirless cameras are less complex to build, so maybe the Thailand based manufacturing facilities are best suited. After all, it's the lense and the person behind the camera that counts.
- robotmay 6y ago
  I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. Obviously the lens still makes a notable difference, and for certain forms, like wildlife photography, the lens requirements are inescapable. The new models out in the past few years have absolutely incredible low-light performance that completely change the lens landscape, even; you can now ditch the requirement of carrying a hefty f/2.8 400mm lens around and swap it out for a lightweight f/4 with a camera that more than compensates for the light loss. But with the capabilities of modern cameras the production requirements for them are high and the challenge to make something that works for a variety of consumers even higher. I can't even look at a camera that isn't "weather-proofed" as I live in a place with a 90% chance of rain at any moment, for example. And a lot of these advancements are designed to work in combination with the lenses, such as in-body and in-lens stabilisation working together, weather seals that line up, etc. I think it's pretty important to maintain the same manufacturing quality between the two areas. I'm sure that's possible when moving production to Thailand, but I expect it will take time for them to iron out their processes. My personal experience of Canon vs Nikon is that I prefer the software of Canon, and historically I preferred the physical ergonomics of Nikon, but the newest Canon models have improved a lot there. On the lens side it was always Canon for me, although I do have a lot of love for Sigma: my 150-600mm Sigma lens has a USB dock where I can actually manually configure the autofocus, among other things, which appeals to my gadget side (and honestly their quality has jumped up massively in the past decade).
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Honestly, my active days are over a bit. Back the day, so, I was part of an active group photographers, mostl ynature and outdoor. Like back when we still used film. Can't agree more on the weather-proof part. I was ather funny to be out taking pictures all day, only to find the camera was sitting in 5 cm of water in its protective bag. Nikon did work better druing that, than. Just an anecdote so, some Nikon's didn't like it that good neither. Some Sigma lenses were really good back than, some on par with Nikkor. Canon lenses were, if I remember well, mostly on par with Nikkor. Been used to Nikon so, I always to break the lighter Canon camera bodies.
  - 6y ago
beagle3 6y ago
Traditional lens manufacturing is likely in its last days (which can easily take a decade or two, but ... the end is visible). Modern lens are made with techniques perfected in semiconductor manufacturing, and use advances in material science (meta materials in particular). I don't know how close this is to mass market, but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way.
- robotmay 6y ago
  There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a big pivot in the market (we're already seeing it, really) with the switch to mirrorless. What I'm hoping we'll see is a total rethink of what's possible in a lens; adapting this new technology to make new designs that exceed what was possible before, rather than just matching it. If they can bring costs down by making use of this new tech then I think it will re-open the market for "I want something that does more than a phone camera". At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    > At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
petre 6y ago
I switched from Nikon to Panasonic as well aflet my grip liquified and Nikon service said it's a consumable and not covered by warranty. Panasonic make smaller and lighter cameras, smaller and ligher glass, sometimes better glass due to the fact that aspherical elements are smaller and easier to manufacture, has interoperability with Olympus lenses and also ability to use Leica M43 lenses.
- trm42 6y ago
  Well, comparing m43 cameras with full frame is like comparing Phase 645 sensor with FF cameras. M43 cameras are really nice and lightweight but have their own limitations. All the Leica m43 glass are so called Pana-Leica glass: Panasonic designed and manufactured but Leica rubber stamped. They still are really nice glass, though :) Disclaimer: used Olympus 4/3 and m43 for reaally long time but the mirrorless full frame gear feels so much better in the closely same sized package.
  - petre 6y ago
    I agree but do not care nevertheless. Still using a small sensor Ricoh GR Digital III most of the time. If I ever want background separation I just pick up the m43. It's good enough. Most people are happy with a phone camera. All of them have really obvious distortion. It's great that there are so many choices to choose from.
rangibaby 6y ago
Nikon have slowly been moving their camera body manufacturing to Thailand for 20+ years, starting at the bottom and moving to the top. Agreed on customer service. Nikon still make many of their top tier lenses in Japan as well. I don’t see that changing any time soon.
dcolkitt 6y ago
I wonder if Apple is considering them as an acquisition target. At their current market cap, the dilution be a rounding error for AAPL shareholders. Apple’s cross functional business org makes them really effective at transferring expertise across product lines. Just subsidizing the high end camera line might be worth it to transfer technology and expertise to iPhone cameras. (Plus slapping an Apple logo on Nikon cameras would probably boost sales overnight)
- jurassic 6y ago
  As a Nikon shooter with pro-level gear, replacing the Nikon logo with the Apple one would be the fastest way to get me to ditch their ecosystem.
jlarocco 6y ago
Not that I doubt your story, but Nikon support is usually pretty good, IME. Last year I cracked the lens mount on my d810, and I took it to the shop where I bought it, and they sent it off and had it repaired no questions asked for a reasonable price (it's out of warranty). It took longer than I would have liked, but other than that a good experience.
tristor 6y ago
I'm really sad to see this happen as well. I've been a Nikon user for 3 decades myself. Canon has always historically had better lenses and Nikon has had better bodies but lots of third party support. I do have some Nikon primes, but most of my lenses are made in Japan by Sigma or made in Japan or Germany by Zeiss. I have had exactly two lenses made outside of Japan by Nikon from their consumer line, and both were subpar optically compared to the Japanese made lenses in their pro line-up. It's such a stark difference, in fact, that I have taken to mostly buying used consumer lenses from the earlier auto-focus days (1973 - 1998) because these lenses are on par with the optical clarity of current generation pro lenses if cleaned professionally. You can usually acquire one for a significant cost reduction compared to buying a new pro lense and have it cleaned locally by the camera shop and get something really quite good. That's how I acquired my 600mm, 500mm, 400mm, and 300mm telephotos for birding, as well as my 50mm f/1.2 prime for general use. Seems if I add any lenses to my collection I'll be buying used or new from Sigma/Zeiss. I saw the shift happening already and had mostly already been doing that. I will say the new PF series pro lenses with fresnel lens elements are really great though. While I still have my older 300mm, I also got the new pro series 300mm prime from Nikon as it's significantly smaller and lighter weight, doesn't even require a lens foot and can be shot hand-held if you have a steady grip. I suppose I should start budgeting to acquire the 500mm version of the PF lens before they move production out of Japan as I find it unlikely I'd buy anything else that's Nikon branded for lenses. For shorter focal length stuff Zeiss is far far superior.
balls187 6y ago
> I've always found Nikon to be lacking in competitive models with Canon Over at Fred Miranda and DPR, canon shooters always lament about the lack of competitiveness Canon was regarding Nikon glass.
- w0m 6y ago
  I feel like Canon shooters have been a little smug about glass; but wisty eyed looking at Sony/Nikon body's/sensors. There's... 2? Nikon lenses I'd love on my Canon FF. There's... 6? I'm aware of with no quality-price equivalent on Nikon.
- bb88 6y ago
  Typically Nikon has had the best glass. And there's a collector's market for much of the nikon vintage glass out there. I really would like to have the 13mm Rectilinear lens if only it isn't worth several tens of thousands of dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor_13mm_f/5.6#:~:text=The%20Nikkor%2013mm%20f%2F5.6,%2Ddistortion%20ultra%2Dwide%20capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor_13mm_f/5.6#:~:text=The%....
ValentineC 6y ago
> Tangentially, I recently bought a superb Sigma lens and was happy to see that it was actually still made in Japan as well; I thought all the third-party lens makers had moved abroad, but surprisingly a number of them are still there. Sigma is probably the best of the third-party lens manufacturers. I have a first-generation Sigma 50mm f/1.4 with Nikon mount (purchased around ~2011) — the build quality is great, and the bokeh is fabulous. I can't say the same for Tamron.
subsubzero 6y ago
As an old Nikon customer I agree with your sentiments. When I got into DSLR cameras about 15 years ago it seemed like Nikon and Canon were evenly matched with each company having a set group of fans. It seems like since then Canon has really pulled away and Nikon seems to be falling behind especially in terms of lenses(quality and variety). If I were to start getting into cameras now I would not look to Nikon, and it makes me somewhat sad to say that.
novok 6y ago
Nikon is the worst performing of the big 4 and has been on a death spiral for years at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if they will stop photographer camera & lens production 5 years from now.

hef19898 6y ago

Cameras =!= Lenses. I always found Nikon cameras more my taste than canon. But that is just taste, in terms of quality, in the sense of the pictures, I never saw a difference. Not back the day when we still developed our black and white pictures ourselves and not now with digital cameras. Lenses on the other hand a different thing altogether. There I saw defferences between the "cheaper" Sigma and the premium Nikkor ones. Not always but sometimes. I would assume that the new mirrirless cameras are less complex to build, so maybe the Thailand based manufacturing facilities are best suited. After all, it's the lense and the person behind the camera that counts.

robotmay 6y ago
I think camera bodies make a much larger difference these days than lenses, actually. Obviously the lens still makes a notable difference, and for certain forms, like wildlife photography, the lens requirements are inescapable. The new models out in the past few years have absolutely incredible low-light performance that completely change the lens landscape, even; you can now ditch the requirement of carrying a hefty f/2.8 400mm lens around and swap it out for a lightweight f/4 with a camera that more than compensates for the light loss. But with the capabilities of modern cameras the production requirements for them are high and the challenge to make something that works for a variety of consumers even higher. I can't even look at a camera that isn't "weather-proofed" as I live in a place with a 90% chance of rain at any moment, for example. And a lot of these advancements are designed to work in combination with the lenses, such as in-body and in-lens stabilisation working together, weather seals that line up, etc. I think it's pretty important to maintain the same manufacturing quality between the two areas. I'm sure that's possible when moving production to Thailand, but I expect it will take time for them to iron out their processes. My personal experience of Canon vs Nikon is that I prefer the software of Canon, and historically I preferred the physical ergonomics of Nikon, but the newest Canon models have improved a lot there. On the lens side it was always Canon for me, although I do have a lot of love for Sigma: my 150-600mm Sigma lens has a USB dock where I can actually manually configure the autofocus, among other things, which appeals to my gadget side (and honestly their quality has jumped up massively in the past decade).
- hef19898 6y ago
  Honestly, my active days are over a bit. Back the day, so, I was part of an active group photographers, mostl ynature and outdoor. Like back when we still used film. Can't agree more on the weather-proof part. I was ather funny to be out taking pictures all day, only to find the camera was sitting in 5 cm of water in its protective bag. Nikon did work better druing that, than. Just an anecdote so, some Nikon's didn't like it that good neither. Some Sigma lenses were really good back than, some on par with Nikkor. Canon lenses were, if I remember well, mostly on par with Nikkor. Been used to Nikon so, I always to break the lighter Canon camera bodies.
- 6y ago

beagle3 6y ago

Traditional lens manufacturing is likely in its last days (which can easily take a decade or two, but ... the end is visible). Modern lens are made with techniques perfected in semiconductor manufacturing, and use advances in material science (meta materials in particular). I don't know how close this is to mass market, but I've seen superthin flat lens, with a marginal cost of production around ~$2 in a university facility, that work better than some $500 lens -- and the latter are expensive because they are hard to make the traditional way.

robotmay 6y ago
There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a big pivot in the market (we're already seeing it, really) with the switch to mirrorless. What I'm hoping we'll see is a total rethink of what's possible in a lens; adapting this new technology to make new designs that exceed what was possible before, rather than just matching it. If they can bring costs down by making use of this new tech then I think it will re-open the market for "I want something that does more than a phone camera". At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

petre 6y ago

I switched from Nikon to Panasonic as well aflet my grip liquified and Nikon service said it's a consumable and not covered by warranty. Panasonic make smaller and lighter cameras, smaller and ligher glass, sometimes better glass due to the fact that aspherical elements are smaller and easier to manufacture, has interoperability with Olympus lenses and also ability to use Leica M43 lenses.

trm42 6y ago
Well, comparing m43 cameras with full frame is like comparing Phase 645 sensor with FF cameras. M43 cameras are really nice and lightweight but have their own limitations. All the Leica m43 glass are so called Pana-Leica glass: Panasonic designed and manufactured but Leica rubber stamped. They still are really nice glass, though :) Disclaimer: used Olympus 4/3 and m43 for reaally long time but the mirrorless full frame gear feels so much better in the closely same sized package.
- petre 6y ago
  I agree but do not care nevertheless. Still using a small sensor Ricoh GR Digital III most of the time. If I ever want background separation I just pick up the m43. It's good enough. Most people are happy with a phone camera. All of them have really obvious distortion. It's great that there are so many choices to choose from.

rangibaby 6y ago

Nikon have slowly been moving their camera body manufacturing to Thailand for 20+ years, starting at the bottom and moving to the top. Agreed on customer service. Nikon still make many of their top tier lenses in Japan as well. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

dcolkitt 6y ago

I wonder if Apple is considering them as an acquisition target. At their current market cap, the dilution be a rounding error for AAPL shareholders. Apple’s cross functional business org makes them really effective at transferring expertise across product lines. Just subsidizing the high end camera line might be worth it to transfer technology and expertise to iPhone cameras. (Plus slapping an Apple logo on Nikon cameras would probably boost sales overnight)

jurassic 6y ago
As a Nikon shooter with pro-level gear, replacing the Nikon logo with the Apple one would be the fastest way to get me to ditch their ecosystem.

jlarocco 6y ago

Not that I doubt your story, but Nikon support is usually pretty good, IME. Last year I cracked the lens mount on my d810, and I took it to the shop where I bought it, and they sent it off and had it repaired no questions asked for a reasonable price (it's out of warranty). It took longer than I would have liked, but other than that a good experience.

tristor 6y ago

I'm really sad to see this happen as well. I've been a Nikon user for 3 decades myself. Canon has always historically had better lenses and Nikon has had better bodies but lots of third party support. I do have some Nikon primes, but most of my lenses are made in Japan by Sigma or made in Japan or Germany by Zeiss. I have had exactly two lenses made outside of Japan by Nikon from their consumer line, and both were subpar optically compared to the Japanese made lenses in their pro line-up. It's such a stark difference, in fact, that I have taken to mostly buying used consumer lenses from the earlier auto-focus days (1973 - 1998) because these lenses are on par with the optical clarity of current generation pro lenses if cleaned professionally. You can usually acquire one for a significant cost reduction compared to buying a new pro lense and have it cleaned locally by the camera shop and get something really quite good. That's how I acquired my 600mm, 500mm, 400mm, and 300mm telephotos for birding, as well as my 50mm f/1.2 prime for general use. Seems if I add any lenses to my collection I'll be buying used or new from Sigma/Zeiss. I saw the shift happening already and had mostly already been doing that. I will say the new PF series pro lenses with fresnel lens elements are really great though. While I still have my older 300mm, I also got the new pro series 300mm prime from Nikon as it's significantly smaller and lighter weight, doesn't even require a lens foot and can be shot hand-held if you have a steady grip. I suppose I should start budgeting to acquire the 500mm version of the PF lens before they move production out of Japan as I find it unlikely I'd buy anything else that's Nikon branded for lenses. For shorter focal length stuff Zeiss is far far superior.

balls187 6y ago

> I've always found Nikon to be lacking in competitive models with Canon Over at Fred Miranda and DPR, canon shooters always lament about the lack of competitiveness Canon was regarding Nikon glass.

w0m 6y ago
I feel like Canon shooters have been a little smug about glass; but wisty eyed looking at Sony/Nikon body's/sensors. There's... 2? Nikon lenses I'd love on my Canon FF. There's... 6? I'm aware of with no quality-price equivalent on Nikon.
bb88 6y ago
Typically Nikon has had the best glass. And there's a collector's market for much of the nikon vintage glass out there. I really would like to have the 13mm Rectilinear lens if only it isn't worth several tens of thousands of dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor_13mm_f/5.6#:~:text=The%20Nikkor%2013mm%20f%2F5.6,%2Ddistortion%20ultra%2Dwide%20capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkor_13mm_f/5.6#:~:text=The%....

ValentineC 6y ago

> Tangentially, I recently bought a superb Sigma lens and was happy to see that it was actually still made in Japan as well; I thought all the third-party lens makers had moved abroad, but surprisingly a number of them are still there. Sigma is probably the best of the third-party lens manufacturers. I have a first-generation Sigma 50mm f/1.4 with Nikon mount (purchased around ~2011) — the build quality is great, and the bokeh is fabulous. I can't say the same for Tamron.

subsubzero 6y ago

As an old Nikon customer I agree with your sentiments. When I got into DSLR cameras about 15 years ago it seemed like Nikon and Canon were evenly matched with each company having a set group of fans. It seems like since then Canon has really pulled away and Nikon seems to be falling behind especially in terms of lenses(quality and variety). If I were to start getting into cameras now I would not look to Nikon, and it makes me somewhat sad to say that.

novok 6y ago

Nikon is the worst performing of the big 4 and has been on a death spiral for years at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if they will stop photographer camera & lens production 5 years from now.