Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses

Nikon Is Ending 70 Years of Camera Production in Japan (mirrorlessrumors.com) 111

Posted by msmash from the tough-times-ahead dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: The Japanese website Asahi reports that Nikon is ending the production of cameras in Japan and moving all production to Thailand. This is simply Nikon's attempt to cut costs as much as it gets. Don't think this is enough to make them stay in the business.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nikon Is Ending 70 Years of Camera Production in Japan More

Nikon Is Ending 70 Years of Camera Production in Japan

Comments Filter:
  • Unfortunately, in some ways, the era of the dedicated camera (digital or otherwise) is coming to an end. I say this because you can learn a lot about taking photos from a dedicated camera with interchangeable lenses and the support equipment. However, given the general quality of cameras in other devices (e.g. phones) this isn't surprising at all.

    • Re: Unfortunately in some ways (Score:4, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday December 21, 2020 @02:01PM (#60854152) Homepage Journal

      The low quality of lenses in smartphones will keep dedicated cameras alive for the foreseeable future. But the high quality of imaging sensors will keep phones able to take most pictures that most people want to take for the same duration.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fermion ( 181285 )
        Photography is matter of meeting expectation. In the long ago, this was done with a pinhole camera and cartridge film which could be machine developed and corrected to produce cheap reliable shots. It was made to be dummy proof. A very good product for those who just needed family pictures.

        The ability of smartphones to take pictures is in the software. The software meets the expectation of the average user to have photos that are consistent with everyone elseâ(TM)s. A shared reality of what the worl

        • And everything will look the same, and we might as well kill ourselves because we will be zombies and computers will tell us how to do everything. Or we can take some control and create art ourselves. That is what will probably save cameras; images that don't look like they come from a phone. Or we can just become coppertops like in The Matrix and fade away.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rhipf ( 525263 )

          In a decade, the software will be advanced enough, the power sufficient, that there will be no lenses. The computer will produced the picture that we expect from light falling on a sensor,.

          Without a lens the light that falls on the sensor will be meaningless. The whole point of the lens is to focus the desired light on the sensor and eliminate the rest. Even with the most advanced AI there is no way that you would be able to get a picture out of the scattered light that falls on a light sensor sans lens.
          Even us humans need a lens to make sense out of the light that reaches our eyes.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fermion ( 181285 )
            It is still in the lab, but the concept is the same as what we have now. The computer builds the image from the sensor, which in no way is human readable like film. The lens actually allows a smaller sensor. What they are doing now would likely involve the glass back of a phone and a large array of sensors. This in the end might not be cheaper or bettter or more reliable. But the lens on a camera is becoming a huge real estate issue.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rhipf ( 525263 )

              From what I can find on lensless image capture (computational photography) they may not be using a traditional lens but they are using a glass overlay that arranges the light into a predicable pattern. So they may not be using a traditional lens but they also aren't "produc[ing] the picture that we expect from light falling on a sensor" any more so than they currently are using a lens.
              The only real thing this does is allow a lot more flexibility in design since you aren't limited by the thickness of a tradi

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Call me when your toy gets a sensor that's bigger than a few millimeters, and a lens mount. And an at least 100% Adobe RGB screen with color management and print simulation.

      Modern pro cameras stay sharp using hundrets of focus points at 240+fps with a sensor so massive and sensitive if you film the sky at night it appears midday blue. And you can swap batteries while recording, and have properly synced external mics and whatnot.

      There will always be a market for the exceptional that you average iLuddite can'

    • I'm not so sure that's the case. Phones haven't even replaced compact "happy snap" cameras (still quite a few of those being sold), and I know few serious photographers who have dropped their (D)SLR in favour of their smart phone camera. There's been a decline in sales of DSLRs in the past decade or so, but that's coming down from a period in time when DSLR photography became cheap enough for casual users to give it a go, and mobile phone cameras still didn't cut it. That market might be lost, but I don'
    • Yeah. And F1 racecars will be replaced with cars right of your local Ford dealer lots. Just because "in some ways" phones can take pictures doesn't mean they can do everything a dedicated camera can do. Nor will they ever. If a hire a wedding photographer and they show up with an iPhone to take the pictures, they will be fired on the spot.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rnturn ( 11092 )
        I tried to travel light and shoot sporting events with a smartphone camera because, heck, the resolution is nearly that of my DSLR. Bad idea. It's next to impossible to even see anything on the display when it's a sunny day, it's a miracle if you can keep the athletes framed, and camera shake is the rule rather than the exception as you need to take one hand off the camera to fumble for the effing shutter release "button". The ergonomics of a smartphone for taking anything other than casual snapshots to pos

        • It's almost unbelievable that there isn't an option for every smartphone to use the power button on the phone to snap photos when the camera app is open.

          • Even if there was, the power button is a shitty shutter button. It's not two-stage, and if you have a case on your phone (necessary for protection in most cases) then it can be hard to press.

  • Hats Off to Paul Simon (Score:5, Funny)

    by boudie2 ( 1134233 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @01:44PM (#60854088)
    I got a Nikon camera. I love to take a photograph. So mama don't take my Kodachrome away.

  • What the unsolvable problem with their business/cameras was?

    Askina as a complete outsider.

    • Re:Can any professional tell us ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @02:38PM (#60854328) Homepage Journal

      Much of the cost of designing high-end professional cameras was historically paid for by consumers, because those companies took the improvements to their sensor technology and later applied it to millions of consumer-level cameras. Cell phones have destroyed the market for those consumer-level cameras, and most cell phones get their sensors from companies like Sony, Omnivision, Aptina, etc., not from Nikon or Canon.

      So now, instead of their pro camera divisions having to pay for only the cost of custom lens R&D, they now have to cover the sensor R&D costs. And there really aren't enough people who want high-end cameras to cover the costs of image sensor R&D.

      That, coupled with major product releases running behind (Nikon-specific) and a lot of deferred sales because of coronavirus (industry-wide), and they're in a world of hurt.

    • Minimum wage in Thailand is about $10/day U.S.

    • Sigma produces cameras and lenses in Japan. They seem to manage so I'm not sure why Nikon cannot...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by slaker ( 53818 )

        Nikon is basically the third place finisher in every category right now. It made great lenses, but it hasn't been able to produce them for Z-mount yet, while Canon is launching niche stuff like an 800mm F11 prime for its RF mount because all the pro glass is already on the shelves. It doesn't have the video chops to compare to Sony or Panasonic, the autofocus of Canon or Sony and for all that, Nikon kit is still pretty expensive.

    • What the unsolvable problem with their business/cameras was?

      Askina as a complete outsider.

      Nikon is really an optics company, they make the cameras to sell the optics. They source the sensors from Sony like many companies. While Canon makes some of their own sensors. But the real problem was there a decade ago. Nikon saw the mirrorless revolution coming and tried to do everything to protect their DLSR product lines. Nikon had the 1-series of mirrorless cameras early but never released anything APS-C or FF until recently. Sony was using the same sensor in their mirrorless lines so it wasn't an iss

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      What the unsolvable problem with their business/cameras was?

      Askina as a complete outsider.

      Smartphones got too good.

      Smartphones killed the point and shoot camera market - you can still find them, but they're either ultra cheap or ultra high end, leaving the camera makers with the dSLR and high end markets. Sony took over as #2 because well, they have great sensors (Playstation and Semiconductors are Sony's biggest money makers, with the latter being primarily camera sensors).

      Canon makes a wide variety of pro

  • Nikon keeps shooting themselves in the foot, and not as in taking a picture. I get that it's their thing that manual lenses from the 1960's can still be used on even the latest cameras but that really holds them back. At some point technology needs a clean sheet for the newest ideas.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by pjt33 ( 739471 )

      Did you miss the Z-mount?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        Did you miss the Z-mount?

        But F mount lenses can be used on Z mount cameras with an adapter, so still not completely incompatible.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pjt33 ( 739471 )

          This is true, but the post I was replying to seemed to be in the vein of the common pre-Z-mount comments that the bayonet size of the F-mount was holding Nikon back from competing with Canon's EF lens range.

        • But F mount lenses can be used on Z mount cameras with an adapter, so still not completely incompatible.

          Yeah so can Celestron Telescope. So hell I can adapt my girlfriend's Olympus lenses to it too, just as she can my F mount. Optics can literally adapt any lens, meaning your post completely misses the point which is that direct compatibility is what held Nikon back, ... except that this is bullshit since Nikon doesn't have direct compatibility anymore.

    • Re:Holding on too long (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @02:06PM (#60854174)

      Nikon keeps shooting themselves in the foot, and not as in taking a picture. I get that it's their thing that manual lenses from the 1960's can still be used on even the latest cameras but that really holds them back. At some point technology needs a clean sheet for the newest ideas.

      You don't feel DSLRs are keeping up with the times? WiFi, USB, streaming, massive MP increases, and now 4K video capability. Pretty much all of these features were non-existent in DSLRs not even two decades ago.

      And that "clean sheet" you're talking about? That was the modern smartphone design. People are incredibly lazy when it comes to learning new tech these days, and most wouldn't even bother learning the minutiae of DSLR photo taking when they can just let the "auto" function on a smartphone do it for them, and still get plenty good enough results. Portability is another obvious factor in the decline of DSLR use, especially as the design mantra for many years was to make smartphones (a.k.a. "cameras") as thin and light as possible.

      And there's one rather huge difference that keeps people using DSLR today; Glass. What you refer to as a design "hold back" they view it as more the main benefit. There's a reason people keep using those old lenses.

      • I have a DSLR by the way, bought recently for specific uses.

        It's very expensive to get a 4k60 DSLR (I don't care because rotoscoping is boring enough at 30), and the little sods don't run off USB-C, so you can't use them for extended periods without having a second battery, external charger or one of those fake battery things that the manufacturers do their best to hide from you and not sell.

        I got mine for filming a specific thing, along with a shotgun mic and some good lights. I like it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by slaker ( 53818 )

          You absolutely can run some mirrorless cameras off USB C. The Canon R5 and R6 will, at least. Canon, Sony and Nikon have all had major body releases recently. They probably all do it or will in the next product cycle.

          • The R6 is two hand a half grand. My mirrorless was a bit cheaper. The whole run of usb thing is definitely not a universal feature yet. Mine's a fujifilm. They recently had a firmware update which lets me use it as a webcam, but image only, not sound for some reason.

            • Canon has the same thing. You can use your DSLR as a webcam, but with no sound. And also, only with Windows 10. The new Canon EOS Utility which provides this functionality won't run on Win7, and I won't run Win10.

              I have the same functionality more or less on Linux, except the camera only squirts out raw video and I have to re-encode it, and that eats CPU. Video is laggy on my only current Linux box, which is my $300 laptop with Ryzen 3. Haven't tried piping the video to my desktop for encoding, but it's old

              • Canon has the same thing. You can use your DSLR as a webcam, but with no sound. And also, only with Windows 10. The new Canon EOS Utility which provides this functionality won't run on Win7, and I won't run Win10.

                Oh that's daft. The Fujifilm one presents itself as a UVC camera, so it works on Mac and Linux and I presume Windows. No lag or any of that.

      • The OP's comment I think was more to the point of form factor. It was widely known that Nikon's F-mount had limitations compared to say Canon's EF mount, and that was a decision limited by physical dimensions.

        However that's where the OP's point ends and goes off the rails as he completely ignored the very much clean slate that Nikon *did* employ when designing their Z series. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/in... [nikonusa.com] how many DSLRs do you see on Nikon's home page? I count zero. I see 7 mirrorless Z series cameras

    • I get that it's their thing that manual lenses from the 1960's can still be used on even the latest cameras but that really holds them back. At some point technology needs a clean sheet for the newest ideas.

      Next time just write "I don't follow Nikon and have no idea about their Z series cameras." It's shorter, easier to write, and gets your point across perfectly without relying on the reader to have to determine that you've actually go no idea what you're talking about.

  • My understanding is that only camera final assembly is going to Thailand. The high end lenses are still being built in Japan; the lower end ones are being built in Thailand as well. Nikon continues to make some of the camera assemblies in Japan (and elsewhere).

  • Canon Guy pours one out for Nikon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slaker ( 53818 ) on Monday December 21, 2020 @02:38PM (#60854326)

    Japanese manufacture is seen as symbolic of quality in the photo world. It's a big deal to move production away. Nikon has been struggling for a while. Sony ate its lunch as the second-place vendor. Nikon more or less doesn't have anything going for it right now; the relatively new Z-mount is missing lenses and its mirrorless camera tech really isn't even a second place finisher in any category. Competing on price might be the easiest move it can make right now.

    I just started to get paid photo work not all that long ago. I'm not claiming I'm a trained, professional photographer, but I've made enough money from it in 2020 that I was able to upgrade to pro-range equipment. For all the people posting that an iPhone is good enough, all I can say is that if that were really truly, I would not have been able to afford the gear I have. Those f/2.8 zooms and 1.2 primes speak for themselves.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I have a Z7 and don't find that I'm missing any lenses. I bought the adapter that allows almost all F-Mount lenses to be used.
      Nikon will add more Z-Mount lenses over time but until that day, there are literally dozens on F-Mount Lenses to use.
      I was using a 200mm F4 Macro a lot over the summer taking photos of solitary wasps. Really great photos.

    • Nearly all Nikon production is already in Thailand, the only thing that remains in Japan are the higher end mag-alloy camera bodies, and professional grade lenses. With this announcement they are just moving the camera body production to Thailand which makes sense because as is quite clear from their low end cameras being assembled from previous generation high end components the factory in Thailand is more than capable of a quality output with high end components.

  • Japanese companies don't offshore all their manufacturing of their prestige products unless they're really hurting financially. I'm a Nikon camera owner, and don't take this lightly when I say this, but unfortunately it looks like Nikon is on its way to being like Olympus or Kodak and their brand will be tarnished in the future, unless they pull a Minolta and then their spirit lives on in another company's cameras, but their name dies.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dhaen ( 892570 )
      Slightly disagree. I worked for a Japanese manufacturer for over a decade. They only offshored "mature products", meaning products that are not going anywhere in the future, and so did not need "hands on" for any rapid modifications or changes. You have to realise that Japan is not different from the US or Europe, they are no more productive and the labour costs are high, so moving production offshore make complete sense from a profit perspective.
  • But I still have my Pentax that lasted 30 years until digital photography became the norm.

  • Where phones excel is in making the best of crappy optics with creative ways to capture more information, eg. using multiple lenses.

    High-end cameras need to follow suit, find some way to capture more than just the image, perhaps like the light field cameras or find a way to combine the output from multiple sensors and lenses to offer additional functionality or to perhaps capture images more quickly in succession or to link the functionality of several cameras to capture bullet time effects or enough of a 3

    • The cameras shoot raw, and you do fancy tricks off-camera later. Then you don't depend on your camera manufacturer for updates to get that functionality.

  • People neglect the fact that there is a growing film photography community out there. People who pay attention to composition and technique rather than just running off a thousand photos and finding something in there. These are people who create the images that the phone photographers try to copy with their filters. Don't get me wrong, there are a minority of digital photographers out there (with real cameras) who do the same thing. But film photographers I guess like to learn the how to use cameras in dep
    • Won't help Nikon, there are enough film SLR's gathering dust in closets everywhere to satisfy whatever market is there for the next thousand years.
      • Some makers are still selling new film cameras. But my point is more that despite all the 'death of cameras' bullshit, real cameras (SLRs, DSLRs, and mirrorless cameras) that rely mostly on optics to deliver an image are not going away anytime soon. As opposed to extremely small sensor phone cameras that use cheap optics and software interpolation to deliver and image. Or in other words, cameras that rely on human creativity rather than a software program to make it up.

  • Don't think this is enough to make them stay in the business.

    Who cares what anonymous dipshit in his mom's basement says?

  • I have been using Nikon DSLR as stills cameras for a long time (started with Pentax, whicih I still own, and then turned Nikon as opposed to Canon - kismet). Bought a new one last year because my previous one died (not worth fixing). Great DSLR for stills, no complaints. Video is fine for me, but:

    * you don't see much on Youtube about Nikon being a great content creator camera (it's ok, but not great).
    * streaming has not been supported until way into the pandemic, though I got it to work somehow months ago.

    T

  • There will always be a market for bulky cameras, until Apple figures out how to bend the laws of physics! Sadly, the days of people needing a separate small camera that offers a similar picture quality to their phone is nearly gone - these small cameras were I guess the main income stream for the Canons and Nikons. A phone is more than capable here, with the added advantage that you can edit the photo on the go and upload it to Facebook before you are even home! The old adage that the best camera is the one

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close