n3eg Loc: West coast USA

One less cardslot = doom?

Don't sweat it. They've been saying micro four thirds is dead for almost a decade now.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

They are not going anywhere, and the D7500 is probably a very fine camera in its own right. It's just not a true successor to the D7200. Think of it as more of a D500 Lite.

VisualMusing Loc: Carrollton, TX

This is business as usual economics. Markets shift, consumer tastes change and companies adjust. For those of you in the tech world.... remember Y2K and the terminal diagnosis of IBM due to the mainframe dying etc.

All of the big brand Camera makers are well diversified and under the same pressures in the consumer market. Is it good or bad? It depends on how much value you place on a high end camera body and where the sweetspot is in price. I suspect that it will cost $1500- $2000 to purchase the low end Canon or Nikon once the shakeout ends and the shakedown begins.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Y2K wasn't such a big deal because companies spend lots of money and time to get their software corrected.
Mainframes did not die, they just got smaller.
If Canon or Nikon were to charge $1500 - 2000 for a low end camera, they're not going to sell many of them.

VisualMusing Loc: Carrollton, TX

Exactly my point.. MF did not die nor did IBM and Hitachi. The DSLR is not going to die, nor is Nikon or Canon... they will just be different and hopefully better. Nikon (and Canon) have too many models and some focus (no pun intended) will help define the new market and price point that is most profitable and best meets the demand. I suspect the price is in the $1500 - $2000 mark... JMO.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Brings back memories, I worked for JP Morgan as a software developer and manager at the time. We started working on the Y2K problem in early 1998. Thousands of us spent millions of man-hours at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure there wouldn't be any problems. And it affected far more then IBM mainframes. I personally had to identify thousands of lines of PC application code in the many older banking systems my team and I supported. We were just one of hundreds of thousands of large and small companies and local and national governments world-wide, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

When I occasionally hear people belittle the whole Y2K issue as an overly exaggerated non-event, I have to laugh. They have no clue what a monumental effort was required world-wide to ensure the minimum impact it ultimately had.

cthahn

Take some pictures and quit trying to impress everyone with this BS.

dave.m

Surely for the current generation of younger people coming to photography it is not the complexity of learning about the technology, but that a DSLR or even CSC is too big and heavy for a selfie stick?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have read that book. Very good.
As far as solving the mount problem there is no solution except with an adapter due to the lens mounting position is closer with mirrorless. Canon has a solution for the M mount and all EF mount work just fine on the M cameras so that is the joy of an all electric mount. Sony though has a problem with 2 different mounts being supported as well.

No immediate demise for these firms if they stay dynamic and move with the times. Who knows what the future is.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I hope I'm around long enough to see how this will turn out. Switching from making money to making profit sounds like splitting hairs, but I guess they will be changing how they do things. It's got to be tough deciding what types of cameras to design, build, and market. As for concentrating on the mid to upper range, that sounds like a good idea. There isn't much profit in low end products. Low end users seem to prefer cell phones. As for the lack of advancement with the D7500, I think Nikon is leading serious shooters to the D500.

I've been using Nikons since the 1970s, so I hope they survive and flourish, but there are no guarantees. There is nothing wrong with Nikon's DSLRS (where my experience lies), so you can't blame any failure on inferior products.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I know! I can't believe that people made fun of all the worries since there were no disasters. Don't they realize that people had to work to make sure there were no problems? The general public seems to work with half a brain and a mob mentality.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Exactly! And Nikon is hoping that "serious shooters" will prefer the D500.

ozdude Loc: Brisbane Australia

Look on the bright side. You can always use your old Nikon lenses on your new Sony body with adaptors.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Nikon, like all major companies, is smart enough to watch each of their divisions and determine which are under performing, which are doing ok and which are doing great. If a division is underperforming, they look to see if the issue is the market or the division. If it's the division, then they look for ways to improve, if it is the market then they determine if they want to make changes or get out of the market. There are some areas where Nikon has determined that there is no cost benefit for them to be in and they are changing or eliminating those areas. Nikon Cameras is NOT one of those areas. Yes, Nikon is using Sony sensors in some of their cameras. They have used 3rd party sensors and other parts for many years. Nikon's biggest issue right now is Nikon Medical field which makes many optical and electronic devices. The microscopes are doing fine, some of the electronic medical imaging isn't. One reason is that there is an extremely limited market for a $250,000 MRI machine or what ever. So, Nikon is evaluating if that is an area that they REALLY want to be in. Nikon point and shoot cameras is another. One thing that Nikon point and shoot has going for it is that some of those Nikon purchasers migrate to bigger and more expensive cameras or they have the bigger/more expensive camera but want a point and shoot as a grab and go. The Point and Shoot market is getting very saturated and competes directly with cell phones. Nikon realizes that, given a choice between a point and shoot camera that will ONLY take photos/videos and a cell phone that can take similar photos plus email, message, take and place calls, gps etc. is not going to be an expanding market for P&S cameras. So, they are evaluating that market. You will notice that Nikon is still upgrading and updating their DX (crop sensor) and FX (Full Frame) lines. This market is going strong. Nikon also has an extremely strong commitment to NASA (and because of the International Space Station) Russian and other non-United States space programs. Nikon is also huge in telescopes, optical spotting scopes etc. for sportsmen, hunters, etc. As with any large corporation that has business interest in many facets of industrial and retail business, Nikon continues to evaluate which area are performing and which need to either be updated or dropped. Nikon is always adding to their market offerings too. (Canon is also doing everything Nikon is and I didn't mean to ignore their contributions and place in the market but the OP was asking about Nikon). Nikon, Canon, and Sony (unlike many American and European companies) are diversified completely across the spectrum of manufacturing. As an example, look at the automobile companies. While General Motors, Ford and other "American or European" automobile companies have added divisions, most of those divisions have the automobile industry as their prime customer. Even in Europe, many of the brands of automobiles have been purchased by Asian companies, merged with other companies or have gone out of business. Honda and other Asian companies are known for one or two markets (Honda Automobiles, Motorcycles, etc.) but also are minority or majority owners of other companies that have nothing or very little to do with their "primary" business. Look at Sony! They are a large photography company that is also heavy in broadcasting, amusement parks, electronics and many other areas of development. I suspect that most of the "Nikon" problems are wishful thinking by others.

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

From a functional viewpoint, I cannot see any advantage a traditional DSLR has over a mirrorless camera. I suppose there might be an advantage to have a direct optical path to the viewfinder, but I'd think providing a superior electronic one might overcome that. I do not use "Live View" and do all my work with the viewfinder, so I'd want a good one. IMO, in broad daylight an attempt to frame and focus using the screen is useless.