# Nikon Cancels Their Unreleased Line of High End Compacts



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2017)

```
In a move that has <a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2017/01/16/nikon-dl-cameras-now-rumored-to-start-shipping-in-march.aspx/#comment-3102985266">been rumored for a while</a>, Nikon has canceled their line of premium DL compact cameras. These cameras were announced last year and were supposed to start shipping in June of 2016.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>February 13, 2017  TOKYO</strong> – Nikon Corporation announced today that sales of the long-awaited DL series of premium compact camera, the DL18-50 f/1.8-2.8, DL24-85 f/1.8-2.8, and DL24-500 f/2.8-5.6, will be canceled.</p>
<p>A June, 2016 release was originally planned for the DL series. However, with the identification of issues with the integrated circuit for image processing, release of the three cameras was delayed indeterminately.</p>
<p>Since then, everyone involved has worked very hard to develop products with which our customers will be satisfied. However, it has been decided that sales of the DL series will be canceled due to concerns regarding their profitability considering the increase in development costs, and the drop in the number of expected sales due to the slow-down of the market.</p>
<p>We sincerely apologize to all those affected by this decision, especially those customers who waited so long for the cameras to be released, retailers and others whose business will be affected, for the inconvenience this decision may cause.</p></blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 13, 2017)

That is the sound of inevitability.


----------



## LDS (Feb 13, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> the identification of issues with the integrated circuit for image processing,



Did they take fire when processing 4K video?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 13, 2017)

hehe. Nikon is in even deeper sh*t than I thought. 

Not even being able to get 3 simple 1" compacts made in over a year, does not bode well for Nikon's ability to develop and launch a winning mirrorless ILC system [APS-C and FF sensor].

So they'll keep making more products for fastest shrinking market segments. Mirrorslap, slap, slap = doom, boom!


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 13, 2017)

Sad news for Nikon shooters. Hope they have better plans for the future.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 13, 2017)

What can I say? ???

Not everyone wants mirrorless cameras to be tiny.
Not everyone wants to pay dearly for quality a little better than point and shoot.
Not everyone that a lot of AF points, but just that they work well.
Not everyone likes compact premium cameras.
Not everyone raises shadows 5 stops, in ISO100.
Not everyone hates Canon.


----------



## Frage (Feb 13, 2017)

Sad new for Nikon, its users and its workers.


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2017)

What were the brands/models it was looking to compete against? Surely not Leica, that's what I think when I read premium but perhaps premium is far below luxury?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2017)

Good news for Nikon fans, they will not be sending even more of their profits into a losing product. They need a well thought out product, and options are very limited. I'd go for a mirrorless version of full frame bodies that can use all those years upon years of lenses and not send a message that those who bought them are going to be left behind like Sony did with A mount.

Canon needs to do the same, they face tha same quandry, but have more money to invest. The "M" seems to be gaining traction.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 13, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> What can I say? ???
> 
> Not everyone wants mirrorless cameras to be tiny.
> *True*
> ...



I shoot both Canon and Nikon, but see little reason to be excited by recent and prospective offerings from either Co. The big difference is that Canon is a bigger more diversified Co. with a bigger market share that is protecting it from the trauma Nikon is feeling. As other companies falter Canon may continue to weather the storms. However, their continuation doesn't make me anymore optimistic about future purchases from either Co. 

Frankly, there's not much exciting happening in the world of ICL cameras period. IMHO, the most interesting camera innovation is happening with cellphones. 

I'm holding out hope that the Canon 6D II with have a nice feature set with an ever-so-slightly improved sensor relative to the 5DIV (is it too much to ask Canon to dump the AA filter?). 

If not, the 80D may be my last Canon body (I suspect that I may have also already purchased my last Nikon body).


----------



## horshack (Feb 13, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> What can I say? ???
> 
> Not everyone wants mirrorless cameras to be tiny.
> Not everyone wants to pay dearly for quality a little better than point and shoot.
> ...



Sony built their entire camera business around the this list and they're doing well. This is Nikon-specific mismanagement.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> What were the brands/models it was looking to compete against? Surely not Leica, that's what I think when I read premium but perhaps premium is far below luxury?



Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fujiifilm, Olympus, Ricoh (Don't they make cameras for Nikon).


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 13, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Good news for Nikon fans, they will not be sending even more of their profits into a losing product. They need a well thought out product, and options are very limited. I'd go for a mirrorless version of full frame bodies that can use all those years upon years of lenses and not send a message that those who bought them are going to be left behind like Sony did with A mount.
> 
> Canon needs to do the same, they face tha same quandry, but have more money to invest. The "M" seems to be gaining traction.



It's good to see Canon making better mirrorless. 

Many claimed there is low to no demand on FF mirrorless, therefore, Canon doesn't make one. I wonder, if Canon already have this technology(body + lenses) on hand? or Canon feels they might lose sale in DSLR and EF lenses. Although these two products are not apple Vs apple, still, it could affect company profits, current DSLR users and future purchase decisions.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 13, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Canon needs to do the same, they face tha same quandry, but have more money to invest. The "M" seems to be gaining traction.



It's good to see Canon making better mirrorless. 

Many claimed there is low to no demand on FF mirrorless, therefore, Canon doesn't make one. I wonder, if Canon already have this technology(body + lenses) on hand? or Canon feels they might lose sale in DSLR and EF lenses. Although these two products are not apple Vs apple, still, it could affect company profits, current DSLR users and future purchase decisions.
[/quote]

I'm sure they have quite a few prototypes locked a vault somewhere. They own the DSLR market virtually outright by comparison, and have the most celebrated line of glass. If they can figure out way to use existing L glass on FF MILC without having to make the body much bulkier, maybe they will.

But for their vast audience of professional users, DSLRs still seem to be preferred. I mean, look at all those MILC bodies on the sidelines of the Superbowl last weekend...

The M seems to have filled a gap for them for now and without even trying, they became the #3 MILC company. And look how few lenses they have for it! Imagine having to ramp up yet another whole new line of FF L glass. I'm sure they prefer not to be stretched too thin for their tastes.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 13, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Canon needs to do the same, they face the same quandry, but have more money to invest. The "M" seems to be gaining traction.



Agreed!

However, in a fixed market, you are only going to sell so many units..... introducing additional models does not increase your net sales, but does increase your overhead. I would not be surprised to see both Nikon and Canon paring down the number of DSLR models that they carry.... I would not be surprised in the least to see the SL1 vanish....


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 13, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I would not be surprised to see both Nikon and Canon paring down the number of DSLR models that they carry.... I would not be surprised in the least to see the SL1 vanish....



You mean in their crop bodies? Seems like they took a pretty firm step in increasing their FF offerings and discussing specialization of models in the last couple years. Like splitting up the 5 line into the 5D4 and 5DS. Plus I think there is still room for a 5DC if they ever decide to do it.


----------



## njene (Feb 14, 2017)

Who's the loser now?


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 14, 2017)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> What can I say? ???
> 
> Not everyone wants mirrorless cameras to be tiny.
> Not everyone wants to pay dearly for quality a little better than point and shoot.
> ...



And.. Not everyone wants to carry around another camera when they have one in their phone..


In all seriousness Nikon and Canon both could reduce their point and shoot line down to 3 major camera models and it would not hurt their sales as a whole. Matter of fact it would make them more money since there would be a huge saving on manufacturing cost.

For example when you look at Canons ELPH line (which I like). They have models from a 150 IS to the 350 HS. The average consumer has no clue or gives a crap about all the fine detail in the features. They want to know 2 things. How many MegaPixels does it have and do they have it in Blue or Red.. Seriously.. We only need one ELPH...


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Feb 14, 2017)

PureClassA said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I would not be surprised to see both Nikon and Canon paring down the number of DSLR models that they carry.... I would not be surprised in the least to see the SL1 vanish....
> ...



While DSLR sales as a whole has been hurt by smart phones. Its only a small percentage and really has no effect on the professional line of cameras. IMHO. The split of the 5D series was nice as many of us could care less about high iso low light photos. But also many could care less about high MP cameras and they need better low light.. So that split made very good sense and I personally cant wait to see what the 5DS mark II brings. 

As far as their APS-C line. Something tells me the SL series may be on its way out. Perhaps it was competing to much with the G series camera sales. IDK. One of the biggest issues many companies face is not competition from other brands. But the sales of their own products in competition with themselves. While this may sound strange this can actually lead to a decline in sales and cause some models not to be able to recoup R&D cost. 

IMHO Canon should just make the T3 T4 T5 (not the Rebel "i" models) lines down a size into a SL body. Filling that gap and still allowing them to profit from previous generation hardware.

Now they are starting to make to many APS-C models also.. This whole 77D mess from the 760D is starting to indicate the marketing department has no true direction on what the market wants. They only need 3 primary APS-C models. Rebel xxxD line, xxD semi-pro and the 7D line (which canon states is also semi-pro). Thats it.. No need to complicate things.. The Full Frame line is perfect. 6D entry level FF, 5D series for working professionals in two models (Studio and General) and the 1D flagship for top tier professionals.
Not counting video CINE models.
Heck if anything, they have room at the top for a medium format camera.. But I personally would just be happy with the 5DSR if they gave it a (global) leaf shutter and IBIS.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 14, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> IMHO Canon should just make the T3 T4 T5 (not the Rebel "i" models) lines down a size into a SL body. Filling that gap and still allowing them to profit from previous generation hardware.
> 
> Now they are starting to make to many APS-C models also.. This whole 77D mess from the 760D is starting to indicate the marketing department has no true direction on what the market wants. They only need 3 primary APS-C models. Rebel xxxD line, xxD semi-pro and the 7D line (which canon states is also semi-pro). Thats it.. No need to complicate things.



My understanding is the xxxxD line covers the "profit from previous generation of hardware" spot.

E.g. the 1000D used the 400D's sensor (discontinued a quarter before the 1000D announced), the 1100D used the 450D's sensor (discontinued about a year before), and the 1200D the 700D's sensor, made in parallel. I bet the 1400D will use the 18MP / 20.2MP sensor after the 7DmkIII is upgraded to 24MP.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

Canon's DSLR APS-C lineup definitely needs streamlining. 

There are really only 3 market segments for it and 3 distinct price points:

*(A) 499 $/€* - low price / entry point
for all n00bs believing "that only with a DSLR you can capture really good images". Make it cheap USD/€ 499 with kit lens, make it small, make it light; flippy LCD crucial as well as [low end] 4k video . 
2 cycles [SL-2 / 2017, SL-3 / 2019], then transfer to EOS-M mirrorless lineup 

*(B) 999 $/€* - fully competitive, "enthusiast" model 
buyers who generally know why they want a well-performing DSLR, are happy with APS-C sensor and willing & able to spend a grand for body only, with Kit-zoom anywhere from 1099 to 1499. With 4k video of course, flippy LCD, body size like EOS 77D, build quality/features like 80D = Canon EOS 90D. 

* (C) 1999 $/€* - Hi-performance for Semi-/Pros 
buyers know, what they want: top-notch performance in a professional-grade APS-C DSLR, mainly for "reach". Best possible sensor and AF system, tough build, full weather sealing, fully articulated LCD. Video less important. "Body only" below 2 grand - for significant percentage of updaters, upgraders from (A + B) and newcomers to Canon system. 
2 more generations [7D III / 2018, 7D IV - 2021], then transfer to EOS M / EOS X

Done. Streamlined portfolio. Saved 60% of manufacturing, logistics and marketing expense over entire Canon APS-C DSLR lineup. Please invest savings into mirrorless EOS M and EOS X [FF] systems. Thanks!


----------



## Tugela (Feb 14, 2017)

PureClassA said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs to do the same, they face tha same quandry, but have more money to invest. The "M" seems to be gaining traction.
> ...



I'm sure they have quite a few prototypes locked a vault somewhere. They own the DSLR market virtually outright by comparison, and have the most celebrated line of glass. If they can figure out way to use existing L glass on FF MILC without having to make the body much bulkier, maybe they will.

But for their vast audience of professional users, DSLRs still seem to be preferred. I mean, look at all those MILC bodies on the sidelines of the Superbowl last weekend...

The M seems to have filled a gap for them for now and without even trying, they became the #3 MILC company. And look how few lenses they have for it! Imagine having to ramp up yet another whole new line of FF L glass. I'm sure they prefer not to be stretched too thin for their tastes.
[/quote]

The driving force in mirrorless cameras will be the trend to hybrids and the adoption of 4K. At the moment Canon do not have processors fast enough to be able to compete in the consumer segment of that market. That is why they don't, it not because FF MILCs don't sell, it is because they don't have competitive technology, so they choose not to compete.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 14, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > What can I say? ???
> ...



Since the electronics inside those cameras are probably identical, they don't lose much by putting out superficially different models with aspects disabled/crippled to cover the market. The only thing that is different is the shell, and I am sure they can change that with fairly minimal cost.


----------



## LDS (Feb 14, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> They want to know 2 things. How many MegaPixels does it have and do they have it in Blue or Red..



Actually it's 3. The third one is "what's the price?" That's why you see more than one model. Price segmentation work and can actually increase profits.

Some may also ask about the zoom - and zoom and phones don't play well together still.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Canon's DSLR APS-C lineup definitely needs streamlining.
> 
> There are really only 3 market segments for it and 3 distinct price points:
> 
> ...



Well, your post sure needed streamlining. 

How is it that Canon consistently does the opposite of what you suggest, and yet continues to gain market share?


----------



## JoeDavid (Feb 14, 2017)

LDS said:


> Some may also ask about the zoom - and zoom and phones don't play well together still.



With the 7Plus, Apple does (sort of). They included two 12MP cameras, one with their usual wide angle lens and a second with a 2x lens that get them to something close to the "normal" lens. Not really a zoom but at least you aren't stuck with just a wide angle camera and digital zoom and the image quality is quite good. I don't expect cell phone cameras to ever replace my interchangeable lens cameras due to the versatility that you just can't get in that form factor (ever seen a TSE lens on a cell phone?) but any camera I have with me on a normal, "non-photography" day or trip is better than the thousands of dollars of equipment I left at home 8) .


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2017)

The upper tier can have fewer choices as those spending more can usually spend well, more. Those spending less need more price points to allow for a choice to be in every hundred or two hundred price point. Something for everyone. Something to save for and something for every budget. I can understand the FF=3 bodies concept but there really needs to be at least 6-10 in the crop/rebel line.


----------



## LDS (Feb 14, 2017)

JoeDavid said:


> With the 7Plus, Apple does (sort of). They included two 12MP cameras, one with their usual wide angle lens and a second with a 2x lens that get them to something close to the "normal" lens.



They're looking for ways to get something better than digital zooms, still in a thin package. Because there are still enough people who still need some zoom for the children sport events, the ceremony, the recital, the animal far away in the park, etc. etc. Even "millenialls" may get past the selfie syndrome one day...


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

3 crop DSLRs + 4 mirrorless crop cameras would really be plenty. With brick and mortar stores disappearing, it it should be less important, how many meters of shelf space one can fill with "different" products.
I don't believe more than 499 / 599 / 1999 price points need to be catered to. 

Butr, Canon is spending millions on market research and they sell more cameras and lenses every single day ... ;D


----------



## LDS (Feb 14, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I don't believe more than 499 / 599 / 1999 price points need to be catered to.



Why? If 899 cameras, for example, sell, without them most people would probably buy the 599 one and not the 1999. Probably Canon has higher margins on the more expensive cameras, thereby "filling" more price points pays out. In the lower end P&S market probably even a 50 difference matters to potential buyers. If assembling slightly different models doesn't require much changes on the assembly line, it becomes mostly a problem of aligning the production and delivery to actual market demand.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2017)

most people able and willing to spend 899 will also be able and willing to spend 999. majority of 899 people will not settle for a lower specced product at 599. 

cost of a spread out, minutely differentiated and in some cases even artificially nerfed product portfolio is not to be underestimated. keeeping things simple and straightforward pays off handsomely in many ways. research, parts/procurement, manufacturing, quality control, logistics, marketing, market perception, warranty repairs, sevice centers etc. ... along the entire value chain.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 15, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Not even being able to get 3 simple 1" compacts made in over a year, does not bode well for Nikon's ability to develop and launch a winning mirrorless ILC system [APS-C and FF sensor].



As if that's somehow the yardstick for success...


----------



## scyrene (Feb 15, 2017)

Billybob said:


> Frankly, there's not much exciting happening in the world of ICL cameras period. IMHO, the most interesting camera innovation is happening with cellphones.



Phone cameras are starting from a much lower base in terms of image quality and flexibility, so it's no surprise they are improving faster. And they benefit from orders of magnitude higher volumes sold, and lightning improvements in computing power.

I don't expect to be excited, though I still am by some products - I want my cameras to be able to produce the best image quality consistently, in conditions that mobile phones have no chance. Ruggedness and reliability are not sexy, but they are crucial to a lot of higher-end ILC users. And for most purposes, the image quality of phones simply isn't there compared to dedicated cameras - not yet.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 16, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> most people able and willing to spend 899 will also be able and willing to spend 999. majority of 899 people will not settle for a lower specced product at 599.
> 
> cost of a spread out, minutely differentiated and in some cases even artificially nerfed product portfolio is not to be underestimated. keeeping things simple and straightforward pays off handsomely in many ways. research, parts/procurement, manufacturing, quality control, logistics, marketing, market perception, warranty repairs, sevice centers etc. ... along the entire value chain.



You are aware that maintaining a myriad of apparently similar (and often literally the same) products at different price points/marketing targets is common practice for companies that manufacture consumer products right?

When I was a student I had a summer job at a company that made paint. They had over the years bought smaller companies and maintained the brands in order to cater to brand loyalty. I remember being on the factory floor during our orientation week and watching a batch of paint being prepared. A giant vat was poured into X cans of a cheap brand name product and Y cans of a premium brand name product - both were literally identical even though you paid twice as much for brand Y.

This is common practice in consumer marketing, and it costs a lot less than you think.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 17, 2017)

There was a reasonable amount of interest in the 18-50mm equivalent DL among landscape photographers. This range was unique among 1" compacts.


----------

