Nikon Will Stop Making Cameras in Japan

[Michael Ventura]

A bit sad to see that Nikon will cease manufacturing of cameras in Japan and will use their Thailand factory instead.  I have been a Nikon user since the mid 1970s, sad to see them having tough times.

 

Article in Petapixel.com

[Betty LaRue]

20 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

A bit sad to see that Nikon will cease manufacturing of cameras in Japan and will use their Thailand factory instead.  I have been a Nikon user since the mid 1970s, sad to see them having tough times.

 

Article in Petapixel.com

That’s too bad. I always considered Nikon the bellweather brand. I knew they’ve been struggling for a few years. I wouldn’t have changed systems if they had been at the forefront of mirrorless, but they lagged behind and other system brands drew too many customers away.
It’s their own fault for not predicting the future, otherwise known as forward thinking, quick action. That starts at the top. Many businesses have gone bust from not being quick on their feet. I want Nikon to survive...mostly for sentimental reasons on my part. It’d be like losing apple pie.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Betty LaRue

[Ed Rooney]

Nikon did their best to support the original promise of a pro system; Canon and others changed their mounts every few years. The D700 was my last Nikon and it was too heavy for me in my 80s.

 

I hope they are able to recover. 

[Panthera tigris]

They have been moving their manufacturing over to Thailand for the last 15 years at least. You would be surprised how the vast majority of their models are already made here in Ayuthaya (just north of Bangkok).  

[MDM]

I don't think this is anything to be alarmed about at all unless you are a Japanese Nikon employee. They are already making a lot of stuff in Thailand including the Z series mirrorless cameras and there is no question about the quality of these or the new  lenses. They were late to the mirrorless market but they are very competitive in terms of the gear and the pricing. Canon are way more expensive for equivalent kit so unless someone is already a Canon user there would seem to be little reason to go Canon mirrorless. Nikon's main competitor now is Sony who do have a huge head start in the mirrorless market but Nikon have a  huge existing customer base and most of the older lenses and accessories work with the Z series cameras. In addition, Nikon are now doing some very advanced stuff in the video arena at very competitive prices. I don't see anything to worry about really.

Edited January 5, 2021 by MDM

[Michael Ventura]

Yes, Nikon is down but not out.  I do think that Sony and the iPhone have kicked them in the ass.  The consumer market has pretty well dried up due to the high enough quality of phone photos for the average consumer and there is just not enough of a pro level need to keep the major manufacturers all healthy.  Sony seems to be doing pretty well since they have been the leader in video for a long time...not to mention, great at making excellent compact cameras. 

[Betty LaRue]

43 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

Yes, Nikon is down but not out.  I do think that Sony and the iPhone have kicked them in the ass.  The consumer market has pretty well dried up due to the high enough quality of phone photos for the average consumer and there is just not enough of a pro level need to keep the major manufacturers all healthy.  Sony seems to be doing pretty well since they have been the leader in video for a long time...not to mention, great at making excellent compact cameras. 

Michael, you are right. Two of my children who used to have consumer cameras now exclusively use their phones for picture taking. Even when they go on vacation (holiday). (Vacation? What’s that?) so out of my 3 children, two have given up on dedicated cameras. I’m sure that is widespread, and it is a kick in the gut for camera companies. Video? The average family is also happy with the video from their phones. I remember when a young couple starting their family felt they had to have a camcorder to record their babies starting with the trip home from the hospital. I haven’t seen anyone with a camcorder in years.

 

I think there will be a need for much more product diversification with these companies, or they won’t be sustainable. The goalposts are always moving. 

[Stephen Lloyd]

Nikon did get the production hit following the natural, and man made, disaster that hit them some years ago. A lot of disruption. Thailand may have it's own issues but they do produce good equipment there. I'm looking to the Z II series post lockdown(s)/Covid/return to life and happy to do so. I do laugh at the Iphone "kicking in the ass" comment though - as I'm one of the rabidly anti-Apple brigade. I like my IT to do what I tell it, not have to create an eco-system that it tells me to, and then charges me a premium for! not a debate I want to open, but using it as an example that the longevity of Nikon glass and mount is a great reason to stick with Nikon.

[Rico]

9 hours ago, Stephen Lloyd said:

Nikon did get the production hit following the natural, and man made, disaster that hit them some years ago. A lot of disruption. Thailand may have it's own issues but they do produce good equipment there. I'm looking to the Z II series post lockdown(s)/Covid/return to life and happy to do so. I do laugh at the Iphone "kicking in the ass" comment though - as I'm one of the rabidly anti-Apple brigade. I like my IT to do what I tell it, not have to create an eco-system that it tells me to, and then charges me a premium for! not a debate I want to open, but using it as an example that the longevity of Nikon glass and mount is a great reason to stick with Nikon.

No debate here. I can still use a Nikkor-S 55mm on my D5. Try that with another brand and see what happens!

(edit) I forgot to mention that that lens is about 50 years old

Edited January 10, 2021 by Rico

[MizBrown]

14 hours ago, Rico said:

No debate here. I can still use a Nikkor-S 55mm on my D5. Try that with another brand and see what happens!

(edit) I forgot to mention that that lens is about 50 years old

I have an adapter that allows me to use a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor from the 1970s or so (version with the large rear element) on my Sony cameras.  And my other adapted lens is a Yashinon 50mm f/1.7 on another adapter.   Both manual only with no connections to the camera, but I can use LensTagger to add focal length and other data in Lightroom Classic.  

 

I admit things were easier with the 105mm and other older Nikkors on the D300.

[Betty LaRue]

35 minutes ago, MizBrown said:

I have an adapter that allows me to use a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor from the 1970s or so (version with the large rear element) on my Sony cameras.  And my other adapted lens is a Yashinon 50mm f/1.7 on another adapter.   Both manual only with no connections to the camera, but I can use LensTagger to add focal length and other data in Lightroom Classic.  

 

I admit things were easier with the 105mm and other older Nikkors on the D300.

I used the heck out of my D300, 105 and 80-400. That’s what I was shooting sandpipers with (80-400 on a monopod) when security guards zipped up in their cute little golf cart and gave me trouble. They kept telling me I was from a newspaper and I kept telling them I wasn’t.  They were nasty and aggressive. I began wondering if I could still kick as high as I once could and visualizing them without their front teeth.

At issue was a lawsuit between the city of San Diego and some people claiming squatters’ rights on the beach for their humble homes that I knew absolutely nothing about and wouldn’t have given a flip about if I had. A lady explained it to me later. I was outside the RV park’s fence, so I’m not sure they even owned the ground I was standing on and had a right to harass me.

I guess my gear looked quite the professional rig. I think it was that big lens. 😁 They kept saying, “with a rig like that, you can’t tell me you’re not from a newspaper”. 

[Harry Harrison]

3 hours ago, MizBrown said:

but I can use LensTagger to add focal length and other data in Lightroom Classic.  

Thank you, I'd not heard of that, very useful, I use a few high quality manual lenses on my Fuji and soon lapsed out of the habit of entering the focal length in advance on the camera itself.

[Rico]

13 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I have an adapter that allows me to use a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor from the 1970s or so (version with the large rear element) on my Sony cameras.  And my other adapted lens is a Yashinon 50mm f/1.7 on another adapter.   Both manual only with no connections to the camera, but I can use LensTagger to add focal length and other data in Lightroom Classic.  

 

I admit things were easier with the 105mm and other older Nikkors on the D300.

Thanks, I didn't know that. It looks like there is an adapter for just about everything.

[Harry Harrison]

12 minutes ago, Rico said:

Thanks, I didn't know that. It looks like there is an adapter for just about everything.

Cheap adapters can be a false economy if they are a loose fit. K&F Concept do seem to be reasonable quality for the price though. You can fit just about anything on mirrorless but for SLR cameras it depends upon the 'Flange Focal Distance'. So you can fit a Nikon DSLR (Ai, Ais, non-Ai) lens on Canon EF but not the other way round, or rather the required adapter would have to have a cheap lens in it which degrades quality. For mirrorless you really want lenses with manual aperture rings (which rules out Canon EF for example). 

[Rico]

32 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Cheap adapters can be a false economy if they are a loose fit. K&F Concept do seem to be reasonable quality for the price though. You can fit just about anything on mirrorless but for SLR cameras it depends upon the 'Flange Focal Distance'. So you can fit a Nikon DSLR (Ai, Ais, non-Ai) lens on Canon EF but not the other way round, or rather the required adapter would have to have a cheap lens in it which degrades quality. For mirrorless you really want lenses with manual aperture rings (which rules out Canon EF for example). 

You are totally correct. I tried adapters a long time ago and found them unusable due to the quality of the image.

Right now, I only use 1.4 and 2x teleconverters for sports photography. I find the quality pretty good, especially the 1.4

[Harry Harrison]

39 minutes ago, Rico said:

I tried adapters a long time ago and found them unusable due to the quality of the image.

Well you can get very good results, it's nice to be able to continue use your favourite lenses. I use a 55mm Micro-Nikkor on both Fuji & Canon 5D Mk2 and of course it is the same quality as it would be on a Nikon full-frame or APS-C. Similarly I use a 35mm Olympus shift on both the Canon & Fuji, nothing to match that precisely in either the Fuji or Canon line-up, no shift lenses at all for Fuji.

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Rico said:

You are totally correct. I tried adapters a long time ago and found them unusable due to the quality of the image.

Right now, I only use 1.4 and 2x teleconverters for sports photography. I find the quality pretty good, especially the 1.4

 

I wonder if using a teleconverter degrades the image quality over what you would get if you shot without it and simply cropped to the same size in post. Obviously it would depend on the quality of the lens, the teleconverter and the camera itself. Teleconverters do cause some image degradation in my experience and always reduce the amount of light as well. I tend to think of them as a bit of a relic from film days and I wonder if the main benefit is just seeing the subject larger in the viewfinder. I am not going to buy a  teleconverter to do the necessary experiment though. The Nikon 1.4 is around £500. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by MDM

[Rico]

16 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I wonder if using a teleconverter degrades the image quality over what you would get if you shot without it and simply cropped to the same size in post. Obviously it would depend on the quality of the lens, the teleconverter and the camera itself. Teleconverters do cause some image degradation in my experience and always reduce the amount of light as well. I tend to think of them as a bit of a relic from film days but nowadays I wonder if the main benefit is just seeing the subject larger in the viewfinder. I am not going to buy a  teleconverter to do the necessary experiment though. The Nikon 1.4 is around £500. 

I found that the 1.4 is pin sharp on a 300mm 2.8 and some slight degradation with the 2x,but I can fix that up with Topaz sharpener. 

Since I do a fair bit of sports photography (or at least I used to, thanks covid) it was worth it for me.

[MDM]

26 minutes ago, Rico said:

I found that the 1.4 is pin sharp on a 300mm 2.8 and some slight degradation with the 2x,but I can fix that up with Topaz sharpener. 

Since I do a fair bit of sports photography (or at least I used to, thanks covid) it was worth it for me.

 

I would like to see a side by side comparison of the same shots with and without teleconverters and focusing on how much detail is captured. Sharpening in software is fine but Topaz or any other software sharpener will not recover detail that is not there in the first place. They will just increase apparent sharpness. Anyway it is just an academic question to me. As for Covid - don't get me going in that one - best of luck whatever 😀

Edited January 11, 2021 by MDM

[Marianne]

20 hours ago, MizBrown said:

I have an adapter that allows me to use a 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor from the 1970s or so (version with the large rear element) on my Sony cameras.  And my other adapted lens is a Yashinon 50mm f/1.7 on another adapter.   Both manual only with no connections to the camera, but I can use LensTagger to add focal length and other data in Lightroom Classic.  

 

I admit things were easier with the 105mm and other older Nikkors on the D300.

 

I kept a few of my old Nikon lenses when I switched to Sony too and they work beautifully fully manual with an inexpensive adapter. I'll have to check out LensTagger because it would be nice to have that info in the files. I usually add a note somewhere in the info. 

[Panthera tigris]

5 hours ago, MDM said:

Teleconverters do cause some image degradation in my experience and always reduce the amount of light as well. I tend to think of them as a bit of a relic from film days and I wonder if the main benefit is just seeing the subject larger in the viewfinder. 

I think 90% of their users are sport and wildlife on the bigger telephotos. I use Nikon's 1.4x on the 500 FL (almost permanently attached) and 600  (non FL) and my eyes can't see any degradation. The 2x on the other hand is unusable for me with significant degradation. Never used the 1.7 but it does not have any stellar write ups. Canon TCs are considered better than Nikons and with much less image degradation.

 

[MizBrown]

16 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

I kept a few of my old Nikon lenses when I switched to Sony too and they work beautifully fully manual with an inexpensive adapter. I'll have to check out LensTagger because it would be nice to have that info in the files. I usually add a note somewhere in the info. 

 

LensTagger works, but set up a text file for each lens for the usual bits.  I can generally tell by looking which of the two lenses I used, but if you had lenses closer in focal length, tagging while you remember would be useful.  It uses metadata .xml (?) files. 

[MDM]

16 hours ago, Panthera tigris said:

I think 90% of their users are sport and wildlife on the bigger telephotos. I use Nikon's 1.4x on the 500 FL (almost permanently attached) and 600  (non FL) and my eyes can't see any degradation. The 2x on the other hand is unusable for me with significant degradation. Never used the 1.7 but it does not have any stellar write ups. Canon TCs are considered better than Nikons and with much less image degradation.

 

 

OK that's interesting. I have had a few different teleconverters years ago (probably Tamron) when I was shooting film but have never had a quality one and have no need for one with the type of photography I do. I just wonder nowadays if sports photographers in particular could get away with using shorter and lighter lenses (never mind a teleconverter) on say a D850 and cropping heavily if the images are only intended for web usage. 

[MizBrown]

23 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Cheap adapters can be a false economy if they are a loose fit. K&F Concept do seem to be reasonable quality for the price though. You can fit just about anything on mirrorless but for SLR cameras it depends upon the 'Flange Focal Distance'. So you can fit a Nikon DSLR (Ai, Ais, non-Ai) lens on Canon EF but not the other way round, or rather the required adapter would have to have a cheap lens in it which degrades quality. For mirrorless you really want lenses with manual aperture rings (which rules out Canon EF for example). 

 

I got one for M42 lenses from B&H for around $40 and one $50 Nikon adapter from the camera store that sold me my a6000.   Neither have aperture control or internal glass.   The lenses are fully manual.   The Yashinon was around $3 US from a local second hand store.  My brother gave me the Nikkor 105mm.   The thing to look for is that the lens on the adapter will reach infinity.  More than infinity is not a problem.   Less than infinity is. 

[Betty LaRue]

I bought a tele shortly after starting out, but I think it was a cheap one and I used it on a kit lens. Bad multiplied.
It’s tough trying to accumulate equipment from scratch. My camera was good, but I found out just any lens that fits isn’t necessarily a good one. Good glass can make a middle of the road camera do fine. Back then, I thought the camera was the end all.
I used to snicker at people who said the glass was more important than the camera, until poor glass kicked my rear.

Betty