Why does Nikon still push out new low end DSLRs when their sales are so bad?
What is Nikon doing to counter-act the mirrorlessers?
It's because the of the low-end dSLR's success that Nikon was paralyzed in the mirrorless market. One of the things that Nikon's Naoki Kitaoka boasted about last year was ‘we're not seeing cannibalization between the DSLR and the Nikon 1: the customer is completely different.' Avoiding cannibalization is why Nikon went with a 1" sensor and a high price point for the 1 series. In doing so, Nikon's marketing department forgot a fundamental truism. It's better to cannibalize your own market share than have someone else come in and take it from you. They also forgot just how difficult it is to sell a reduced size "luxury" product in the United States.
In my opinion, most of the lower sales of consumer dSLR's is due to a combination of fashion and market saturation. Simply put, a lot of consumers already have a dSLR that does what they ask of it. They'd rather spend their money on phones, drones, or other high tech toys. But while sales are down in percentage, the absolute numbers absolutely dwarf sales of professional and prosumer gear. This gives the consumer group a lot of power, which is why we end up with a never ending series of 18-xxx lenses.
I'm not sure that Nikon's in a precarious position yet -- it may just be that the inevitable end to the boom has come. But if they end up in a precarious position, it won't be the first time that Nikon's marketing department lead them there. Nikon initially treated technologies such as autofocus, TTL flash, and VR as "sizzle" -- they didn't think that pros wanted or needed them. As a result, the F4 generation of cameras were a disaster for them in market share, and Canon had the stabilized telephoto market to themselves for nearly a decade. The second time was when dSLR's were just taking off. Canon's first Digital Rebel had the under $1000 market to themselves for an entire Christmas season, while Nikon tried to sell the less capable D100 for $1500. As for professional cameras, Nikon's announcement of the 4 megapixel D2h was rapidly eclipsed by an 8 megapixel 1.3 crop Canon.
At both times, Nikon eventually stopped the bleeding. The F5/F100/F80 series of cameras were excellent and well received. The D2x was solid. The 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5 was so much better than Canon's 18-55mm of the time that the "me too" 6MP D70 competed successfully against 8MP Canon cameras. And the 18-200mm generated actual excitement for Nikon for the first time in years if not decades.
I actually look at lenses like the 105mm f/1.4 the 200-500mm, and the new 70-200mm VR-III as hopeful signs. It looks like Nikon is trying to establish it's professional products at a higher quality level than Canon. But the perception of the 24-70mm VR may indicate a misstep, no matter what the technical reality may be. But whether they realize it or not, Nikon
and Canon are facing a real challenge from Sigma and Zeiss. While brand loyalty helps, if you're Nikon or Canon you can't afford to only offer the 3rd (or 4th or 5th) best 85mm 1/4 or 50mm f/1.4 lenses.
As for myself? Like those "consumers," my basic needs are more than met by my current gear. I will eventually want to upgrade my wide-angle zooms and perhaps my 150-500mm Sigma, but I'm in no hurry to do so. Instead, I'll be watching the EVIL market with an eye towards replacing my V1. But as long as the "cannibalization" mindset holds, it's unlikely to be with a Nikon.
