NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Other => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on November 04, 2016, 14:46:43
-
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/former-nikon-ambassador-sporsheim-says-sony-circling-around-nikons-camera-division-like-shark-water-smelling-blood/
Sony is lacking two things currently:
1. A professional worldwide support network. Sony support really sucks, Nikon support is one of the best in the industry
2. A user interface that does not suck big time like Sony's interface does.
What Sony has is:
1. Industry leading still photo recording chips in several formats from Smartphones to 44x33 qmm
2. Some of the best video recording chips
3. A mouth watering line up of lenses from Minolta and Zeiss
To make a long story short.
YES!!!
These companies should team up in some way and do so very soon. This will be great news for both companies and their customers!
-
Well it would spell the death knell for Nikon, as Sony so far have not convinced me that they can run a camera company such as the likes of Canon or Nikon.
On the other hand if they can get the company cheap enough, they could do what many US software companies do - buy a competitor and slowly shut it down, thereby removing said competitor.
We live in interesting times.
-
Sony would quickly destroy Nikon's service network as unnecessary and also get rid of any products with optical viewfinders as they did with the A mount. F mount would no doubt become SLT'd and then they'd wonder where the customers went as they did before.
Canon would basically then take over much of Nikon's market share.
I would either quit photography (since I cannot work with EVFs), or sell everything at a huge loss (because the Nikon system would be seen as a dead end, the resale prices of cameras and lenses would plummet) and buy Canon equipment and keep working with that. That may not be so bad - one can almost buy two TS-E lenses (17 and 24) for the price of one Nikon 19mm PC ... ;)
"Haven’t updated me for a while either"
So, if I read this statement correctly, this "information" behind the "rumor" is not based on current knowedge of Sony's intentions.
-
I ´ve already heared there will be no D5s, but a D5 Alpha :-X
-
I don't like this!! :-\
-
Sony already have stills cameras and pro video cameras for their E mount. I judge Sony's current engagement in their DSLR A mount to be a service to existing A mount users, rather than a strategy for the future.
Sony has begun reworking the UI, with a new menu system in the A6500 camera. A touch interface has started evolving as well.
Nikon service and support in Norway has been staffed down from 13 to 3 persons in Norway, according to Frank's link. Where is this excellent service and support organization that Sony would get by buying Nikon?
Nikon is weak on video, no really good video AF (no LV PDAF nor dual pixel like Canon), no EVF option, no focus peaking. Nothing for Sony in the video department
Nikon has fast AF for sports and action with long lenses with the D5 and D500, particularly tracking is excellent. This is the only thing where Sony is behind with the E mount. The A mount A99 mkII is much closer to Nikon in performance here, but there is a much smaller selection of long lenses than for Nikon.
Lens design, Nikon, Sony and Zeiss are all capable of making great lenses and they do so. Canon, Leica, Fujifilm, Olympus, Cosina (Voigtländer), Panasonic can all be added to that list. So no gain is to be had here by a merger of Sony and Nikon. Sony is already outputting as many or more new lens models per year for the E mount than Nikon does for the F mount.
Lastly, Nikon management appear to me to be bad, and I wouldn't want any Nikon management people to work with the Sony E mount system. Period. Just see how they have botched the Nikon 1 system, the DL launch, Snapbridge, Keymisdion. This is to be blamed on management rather than the engineers. Nikon engineers just made the 105/1.4 and the 19/4 PC-E.
The parts of Nikon worth having for Sony is the Nikon lens designers and the Precision equipment division. The rest not, I think. Sony does lens design well and Zeiss is on board, so that leaves Precision Equipment.
I don't think Sony should buy Nikon. Rather I hope that Nikon will find a partner that is strong on video, but currently isn't strong on stills cameras or lens development. Preferrably the Precision equipment division of Nikon should fit into such a partnership as well. Someone should evaluate Nikon management and take action on their findings.
Edit: Typos
-
Time will tell - So far this is one guys that has heard about a shark in Norway,,,
-
Time will tell - So far this is one guys that has heard about a shark in Norway,,,
We have long coast line, and sometimes sharks make detours to our waters. :o ;)
-
He he,,, indeed!
-
Seems unlikely to me.
This kind of aggressive acquisition of rivals may happen in the US, but is very rare in Japan.
-
Seems unlikely to me.
This kind of aggressive acquisition of rivals may happen in the US, but is very rare in Japan.
We have seen this on the software side of digital photography, unfortunately. Corel is infamous for getting rid of competition that way and so is Adobe.
-
That would be a tragedy. Nikon is not just a company that makes cameras and lenses, it is a company that honors it's heritage and is dedicated to the art and soul of it's endeavours. A rare and valuable thing nowdays. Sony doesn't care about any of that, they just make profit. While they could improve areas of Nikon's tech, they would bury the heart in a shallow grave to save money on the gravediggers. All future "Nikon" gear would be based solely off flavor of the week and all of it would be fair game for the chopping block when it isn't. You could kiss legacy support good bye. No thank you.
-
I also think that this is very unlikely to happen in Japan
-
That would be a tragedy. Nikon is not just a company that makes cameras and lenses, it is a company that honors it's heritage and is dedicated to the art and soul of it's endeavours. A rare and valuable thing nowdays. Sony doesn't care about any of that, they just make profit. While they could improve areas of Nikon's tech, they would bury the heart in a shallow grave to save money on the gravediggers. All future "Nikon" gear would be based solely off flavor of the week and all of it would be fair game for the chopping block when it isn't. You could kiss legacy support good bye. No thank you.
How can you say that Sony doesn't care about their heritage? Sony and Nikon have different heritages that they care about. And make no mistake, both companies are run for profit in a most "capitalist" interpretation of the word.
Lest we not forget, almost a year ago the rumour was, that Samsung would acquire Nikon... Let's wait and see.
-
If there is any truth in this and Sony does swallow parts of Nikon, I think the only part of Nikon to survive will be the single digit D, the sports/action lenses and perhaps the CLS flash system. Later the F-mount will be changed to the A- or E-mount. Yup, I like a Nikon future like that >:(
-
Sony did keep the much smaller (in terms of user and lens base) Minolta mount. They only made the E mount when they realized nobody would buy an EVF camera which is as big as a DSLR. Sony had a market share before they introduced the SLT concept, after which users fleed. Now they have about the same market share combined in A and E mounts they did with A mount OVF cameras. I think they could have twice the market if they switched back to DSLR for the A mount. But since Sony have an A/V background and not photography, they do their best to destroy the aspects of their cameras that are important for the latter.
-
Thom Hogan thinks,"No,": http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/rumor-versus-speculation.html (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/rumor-versus-speculation.html)
-
I think;
A lot of very strong opinions on brands here,,,
Pleas stick to stating your opinions based on facts rater than your feelings,,,
Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen!
-
I think;
A lot of very strong opinions on brands here,,,
Pleas stick to stating your opinions based on facts rater than your feelings,,,
Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen!
Erik, the fact is that there are no facts 😊
-
He he,,, Facts on Brands and their Products,,,
Is it still not raining?,,,
-
The weather man says snow in the land of the long costal line. :)
The sharks will visit next summer. 8)
-
Sony is essentially a video company and Nikon, still company. Sony's ignorance of still images are obvious: they only reluctantly allow 14bit uncompressed RAW in the current AR7 MkII lineups. Sony never employs free angle LCD that is beneficial for the portrait orientation as well as for the landscape orientation. The DSLR-style alpha lineup is essentially Minolta, not Sony. Although there has been a long partnership history between Sony and Nikon in terms of the sensor, they don't seem to mate nicely together.
-
It seems pretty clear that there is no money to be made from the "deal" and therefore there is no deal.
-
Exactly!
-
So what will pull Nikon from the woods? :-\
-
How can you say that Sony doesn't care about their heritage? Sony and Nikon have different heritages that they care about. And make no mistake, both companies are run for profit in a most "capitalist" interpretation of the word.
Lest we not forget, almost a year ago the rumour was, that Samsung would acquire Nikon... Let's wait and see.
They both obviously are here for profit; the difference is Nikon seeks to make money with photography and imaging, while Sony seeks to make money with anything they can possibly produce. Had Sony already purchased Nikon there wouldn't be Ai-s lenses in production and cameras likey wouldn't support them. Personally I have always found Sony's aesthetics, interfaces and love of proprietary stuff to be just utter rubbish.
Just because Walmart sells groceries now, doesn't mean I want my groceries from Walmart. I prefer a grocery store.
-
They both obviously are here for profit; the difference is Nikon seeks to make money with photography and imaging, while Sony seeks to make money with anything they can possibly produce.
One of the biggest difference of the business purpose between Sony and Nikon is 4k. Sony makes 4k TVs which is bigger business than the camera. However, there are no 4k broadcast, and a Blu-Ray disc cannot handle the 2-hour movie in 4k. So, Sony has to encourage the consumers to create 4k movies on their own. That's why they are enthusiastic about offering 4k capability in virutally all of their possible products: DSLRs (although current Minolta derivatiives are no more true DSLR), mirrorless, compact cameras, videos and action cameras. The same goes with Panasonic. Canon is less enthusiastic in this sense simply because they don't make 4k TV. Needless to say about Nikon.
-
They both obviously are here for profit; the difference is Nikon seeks to make money with photography and imaging, while Sony seeks to make money with anything they can possibly produce. Had Sony already purchased Nikon there wouldn't be Ai-s lenses in production and cameras likey wouldn't support them. Personally I have always found Sony's aesthetics, interfaces and love of proprietary stuff to be just utter rubbish.
Just because Walmart sells groceries now, doesn't mean I want my groceries from Walmart. I prefer a grocery store.
Your comparison about groceries is at best ludicrous.
Btw. Sony supports MF glass, including Nikon Ai-S... They even support third party AF E mount lenses as well as third party MF glass with full electronic integration, from Cosina/Voigtländer and from Zeiss. Proprietary? No more than others. I find MF a lot easier with Sony A7 than with a DSLR, so in my case your statements about Ai-S support is dead wrong.
Aestetics? Nothing AF/digital is aestetical except maybe Fujifilm cameras.
-
Good that there are not even facts
Thom Hogan thinks,"No,": http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/rumor-versus-speculation.html (http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/rumor-versus-speculation.html)
quoted from bjornthun's link:
"Update: the Nikon Ambassador quoted in the “rumor” has contacted me and says that what he meant by his shark quote is that Sony believes that they can take market share away from Nikon while Nikon is floundering (to keep the fish metaphor alive ;~). Still, that just illustrates my point: the “rumor” wasn’t a rumor: it was errant interpretation."
would be a pity and: hey, Nikon is having its 100 years anniversary next year
-
So what will pull Nikon from the woods? :-\
Higher prices and declining sales for the near future.
-
Higher prices and declining sales for the near future.
This applies to the entire camera industry. :(
-
Your comparison about groceries is at best ludicrous.
Btw. Sony supports MF glass, including Nikon Ai-S... They even support third party AF E mount lenses as well as third party MF glass with full electronic integration, from Cosina/Voigtländer and from Zeiss. Proprietary? No more than others. I find MF a lot easier with Sony A7 than with a DSLR, so in my case your statements about Ai-S support is dead wrong.
Aestetics? Nothing AF/digital is aestetical except maybe Fujifilm cameras.
My perspective on Sony and their products is from my handful of years as an electronics salesmen. They always had the most proprietary stuff, always had the hardest UIs for customers to learn and were far far more likely to end up suddenly discontinued and totally unsupported. They did often have great insides, but the rest . . . not so much.
On the legacy glass issue, they are a newcomer to the market and aggressively trying to secure a healthy chunk of the market. I have no doubt things would change once they feel secure and unthreatened. Allowing people to use their old glass is good for bringing them into the fold, but not good when you want to sell new stuff and no longer need to worry about securing your place in the market. This is where Sony being a peddler of anything electronic comes into play. They would have no qualms killing legacy support overnight as soon as it suited them. Legacy support suits them today and will not suit them tomorrow. Of all the things in this response, you can take that one to the bank.
Aesthetics is a personal opinion. Sony products have always looked to me like someone from the past tried really hard to make something look futuristic. Not my thing.
As for the grocery comparison, I mean that I would much rather patron companies that have a specific focus they work with. I simply do not like companies that do anything and everything, based on a personal preference for market variety and company passion. Walmart sells bananas just like my local grocer, but Walmart also sells a billion other things and relly doesn't give a shit about bananas like my local grocer does. I am well aware most people don't care about this, I do.
Lastly, ludicrous is quite strong word on it's own to stamp on someone's perspective. And apparently I scored even lower than that with you. Feel free to ignore my words if they are that below you.
P.S. Disliked Sony before they got into ILCs and have not owned a single Sony product since my days as an electronics salesmen. My view on Sony is totally independent from their push into this market.
-
My perspective on Sony and their products is from my handful of years as an electronics salesmen. They always had the most proprietary stuff, always had the hardest UIs for customers to learn and were far far more likely to end up suddenly discontinued and totally unsupported. They did often have great insides, but the rest . . . not so much.
On the legacy glass issue, they are a newcomer to the market and aggressively trying to secure a healthy chunk of the market. I have no doubt things would change once they feel secure and unthreatened. Allowing people to use their old glass is good for bringing them into the fold, but not good when you want to sell new stuff and no longer need to worry about securing your place in the market. This is where Sony being a peddler of anything electronic comes into play. They would have no qualms killing legacy support overnight as soon as it suited them. Legacy support suits them today and will not suit them tomorrow. Of all the things in this response, you can take that one to the bank.
Aesthetics is a personal opinion. Sony products have always looked to me like someone from the past tried really hard to make something look futuristic. Not my thing.
As for the grocery comparison, I mean that I would much rather patron companies that have a specific focus they work with. I simply do not like companies that do anything and everything, based on a personal preference for market variety and company passion. Walmart sells bananas just like my local grocer, but Walmart also sells a billion other things and relly doesn't give a shit about bananas like my local grocer does. I am well aware most people don't care about this, I do.
Lastly, ludicrous is quite strong word on it's own to stamp on someone's perspective. And apparently I scored even lower than that with you. Feel free to ignore my words if they are that below you.
P.S. Disliked Sony before they got into ILCs and have not owned a single Sony product since my days as an electronics salesmen. My view on Sony is totally independent from their push into this market.
Then we have very different views on Sony. I have used Sony products for three decades, and have usually preferred Sony UIs to just about everything else in consumers electronics. I'm the kind of person whose VCR didn't blink "00:00". ;)
Examples of Nikon dropping support abruptly: Nikon scanner drivers, Nikon CNX 2.
Will there be more Nikon 1 lenses or cameras?
Nikon and Sony appear very similar to me, just like all companies run for profit. The best way to keep them on their toes is for them to have real competition. That precludes a merger or acquisition between Nikon and Sony. Then we're back on topic.
-
I do not think the dropping of CNX2 compares at all with Sony and the Walkman. It all comes down to deep pockets. Nikon has never had deep pockets at the best of times :(
I totally agree with competition, good for all of us.
Looks as if Google is killing off Nik to sell more Apps. Of course, then there is Michael Dell .... :)
Tom
-
So what will pull Nikon from the woods? :-\
The woods everyone is in are simply the fact that in the 10 years or so after the arrival of digital no one had a camera, so everyone bought a new one. Even people who were not actually interested in photography had to buy a Nikon/Canon camera to take digital pictures, and many ended up with an ILC. Then, because the technology moved very quickly in its early phase, those cameras were soon obsolete and were replaced. All the camera companies expanded dramatically to meet that dramatically expanded demand.
Now the market is returning to something like it's state before digital: people who are not interested in photography use their phones, so Nikon/Canon are mainly selling to a much smaller market: people actually interested in photography. Nikon managed perfectly well selling film cameras to that market, so there is no reason it cannot manage perfectly well now. Managing the de-expansion will be tricky, but there is no fundamental reason it cannot be done.
There is a problem with the de-expansion of the digital market that was not there with film: meeting R&D costs. That is why consolidation might happen, because bigger companies can sustain R&D costs in a way smaller companies cannot. The other way R&D costs can be met is by sharing them with related product lines. Olympus has said it will keep making cameras, despite the fact that it is losing money on the camera business, because of synergies with the much bigger and more lucrative medical market (Olympus is the world leader in endoscopes, and it turns out that one of the first things people in India and China do when they become well-to-do is to not to buy a camera, but to get someone to poke a lighted tube up their behind, so that market is expanding very rapidly). Photographic cameras are a small part of the digital sensor market: surveillance and remote control cameras are the biggest part and getting rapidly bigger. It is not a camera company Sony would be buying, it is a garage door-opening company.
And Thom Hogan has said today that the photographer who started the rumour has told him that what he meant was not that Sony might buy Nikon, but that Sony expected to take market share from Nikon as they struggled.
-
It's a fact that the only hardware that easily makes 10 years in my household and still functions as on day one is my Nikon cameras and Yamaha sound system.
The rest of the stuff goes into recycling before five years are up, mostly past their sell date or broken.
For that reason alone I will not touch a Sony. Their after sales support in South Africa is non existing.
-
I guess we will have to sit and wait?
I own a few Sony electronics mainly ES series stereo components CD transports and Cassette decks over 10+ years old and still kicking.
I have a 32" Sony Bravia flat screen over 10 years old and still looks good.
But most of this stuff winds up in the recycle bin or the land fill within four years these days.
-
Sony's record with small consumer electronics in the post-cassette era has been pretty bad. Their professional broadcast equipment has been excellent quality, however. Two extremes.
The design/handling of the A7 cameras seem to me like consumer designs. Sharp corners and slick surfaces on a device meant to grasped and operated by the human hand. ??
I think Nikon or Canon, if they treated it as a professional product, could make a mirrorless competitor much nicer than the current Sony 24x36 cams.
-
The woods everyone is in are simply the fact that in the 10 years or so after the arrival of digital no one had a camera, so everyone bought a new one. Even people who were not actually interested in photography had to buy a Nikon/Canon camera to take digital pictures, and many ended up with an ILC. Then, because the technology moved very quickly in its early phase, those cameras were soon obsolete and were replaced. All the camera companies expanded dramatically to meet that dramatically expanded demand.
Now the market is returning to something like it's state before digital: people who are not interested in photography use their phones, so Nikon/Canon are mainly selling to a much smaller market: people actually interested in photography. Nikon managed perfectly well selling film cameras to that market, so there is no reason it cannot manage perfectly well now. Managing the de-expansion will be tricky, but there is no fundamental reason it cannot be done.
lots of truth in there, the learning curve is not as strong as it was in the last decade, the market is somewhat saturated
When i started with photography some 30 years ago the consumer market seen Canon and Minolta as the main competitors. Nikon was #3 (at the best) and focussed more on Pro-sector (Canon was not that present in this field then). But its easier to manage a astatus quo than to do a controlled downsizing.
Nikon probably should re diversify again (i remember some years ago it had is income mainly as a stepper company and not for photographic products)
Probably difficult to gain more importance in the video sector, but Nikon should soon provide an atttractive and competitive series of mirrorless camera systems (includign a Full format sensor) that is able to use the F- mount SLR lenses with an highly compatible adapter plus a new series of compact lenses doing better than those of the Nikon 1 Series
-
I am actually quite happy with the performance of the Nikon 1 lenses and think especially the 18.5, 6.7-13 and 30-110 offer very good quality for their price in a compact package.
Nikon did a lot of things wrong when they launched Nikon 1 (foremost price), but for me it now serves well as a compact system for light travelling. And the Nikon 1 system shows Nikon has the technology inhouse to also develop mirrorless camera's with larger sensors with fast on sensor PDAF and high framerates if necesary.
They do not need Sony for that.
-
Regarding Nikon I system i mostly disliked the finish of the lenses. And in all those years Nikon did not manage to provide a lens with macro capability for the system.
I bought (very unusual) a Nikon 1V1 as an early adopter (overprized of course9 and this camera clearly showed the discrepancy between what could have been done and what Nikon actually achieved. Sometimes good if you need a crop camera or absolute silent mode.
For general purposes i found that my Coolpix had a better usability. Nikon 1 could not establish a place between SLR and Coolpix
I can live without a new mirrorless system but it would be wise for Nikon to get its feet on the ground in this field
-
Reading through the answers I still feel there is a lot to win
Sony Service is bad. My local store say: "three weeks minimum
often more in the six weeks time frame."
So if Sony wants professionals to use their cameras
They have to change that. The could potentially
Use the existing NPS network and extend it.
Nikon also has a lot of experience of taking Sony
Designs and making them into better chips.
But
Many of you say the company cultures are
Incompatible. What a pity.
-
So if Sony wants professionals to use their cameras
They have to change that. The could potentially
Use the existing NPS network and extend it.
But do they want to? My experience with Sony service is with a VAIO laptop which would crash daily until it wouldn't even boot. Sony offered absolutely nothing to me to solve the problem, and told me to contact Microsoft. Microsoft said they provide no support to OEM Windows such as the one used on the Sony. Sony offered absolutely no service, refund, fix, compensation to me. Nothing at all. I had an expensive laptop which was practically worthless.
Nikon on the other hand. Let's see. I dropped my D800 and the AF went off calibration. I took it in to JAS, told them what happened. It was out of warranty by that time. Nikon paid for the repairs, no questions asked, even though the fault was with me and it was not under warranty.
My 24 PC's shift lock stopped working after about six months of use. I took it in to service at JAS. They called me back and told me they didn't have the parts but that Nikon told them to give me a new lens, which I went to pick up, unopened in a box. Nikon didn't need any repair personnel or NPS for that - it's all about the attitude towards a customer's problem.
Nikon has no repair personnel working for them in Finland; they outsourced repair to a JAS who also does Canon etc. repairs. Sony could easily do that as well and get similar repair turnaround as Nikon or Canon. But do they want to provide service? My experience suggests that they perhaps don't. Sony just basically stated that my problem was not their problem - bugger off. Of course my experience was with a laptop, not a camera, but I will never forget that experience. It makes me bite my teeth in anger. If I had had any money, I would have contacted a lawyer. Instead I just swallowed my loss.
I don't want such poisonous attitude to infect Nikon. Thus I am happy if Nikon partner with Sony to make components such as sensors but keep their own attitude towards customer service.
I am not saying my experience is to be generalized. But when Sony first bought Konica-Minolta's camera business, I was interested in them because they had the sensor based anti-shake feature. I asked the most prominent camera store why they didn't keep any Sony DSLRs on display. The senior salesman there simply stated they had had really poor experience with Sony service and therefore would no longer sell any Sony DSLRs. (At that time they were still DSLRs, I think.)
Nikon also has a lot of experience of taking Sony
Designs and making them into better chips.
Currently the problem seems that Sony bought Toshiba's sensor making facility and if I'm not mistaken, also the facility where Renesas made sensors for Nikon and they decided to consolidate large sensor manufacture in one place. Which then suffered under the Kumamoto Earthquake. Brilliant.
It would be better if one company did not have such influence, rather that factories making critical parts were distributed in different places so that there is not a total loss if one factory is hit by a natural disaster. So I would think Sony buying everyone is just not a good idea.
More manufacturers, more competition, lower prices, and less volatility in the industry. Canon is now doing well (8% increase in ILC sales) because they make their sensors elsewhere and they seem to have solved their base ISO DR issue for the most part in their own sensors, and they have some brilliant technology (dual pixel AF).
I really liked it when Nikon worked with several partners to make the sensors for their cameras. It gave Nikon the ability to choose the best technology and made them less vulnerable to what happens at any one factory. If Sony were to buy Nikon it would be the end of collaborating with other companies to make sensors. Thus it would mean that a loss of one factory would mean the end of camera production for possibly a long time. This is not a good strategy.
I guess it could be deduced that I am angry with Sony. I am a little angry, yes, because of my laptop experience, but even more I dislike the fact that they stopped making cameras with OVFs. These things combined simply tell me that I want absolutely nothing to do with them as a customer. I cannot inject my personality and shooting experience into the photographs if I have to use an EVF to compose the image and decide when to press the shutter. I simply cannot accept that 25 years of learning to understand human emotion and its visual cues in order to make better photographs would be thrown into the toilet because the EVF simply doesn't show these cues and distracts my brain with moving jaggies and other artifacts. It's the most important skill I have acquired in life so far.
For those photographers who like EVFs, can and want to use them (shooting subjects or with a technique where they have more advantages than disadvantages), I can see how they would feel the opposite of how I feel. There is a lot of manufacturers who make cameras with EVFs so I don't see Nikon's relative absence from this market a huge problem. Nikon see the OVF as their great advantage, as do I.
-
Nikon is going to restructure the company. They will re-assign or give early retirement to 1,550 employees. The goal is to reduce the workforce by 1,000 people. Link here: http://nikon.com/news/2016/20161108_1_e.pdf (http://nikon.com/news/2016/20161108_1_e.pdf)
350 employees will be cut from the Imaging division.
Nikon is continuing the diwnward trend with lower sales of ILC, compacts and lenses also for the period July-September of 2016.
Nikon will do a write-off for the fiscal year 2017 and due to this, they forecast a loss for the fiscal year 2017.
However, as Thom Hogan points out, Nikon is not on the verge of bankruptcy, but is just shrinking.
Canon cites good sales of both DSLRs (5D mkIV and 80D) and mirrorless (EOS M) as drivers for an increase in ILC sales. Compacts sales are abyssmal, however. Canon imaging as a whole is down.