As usual these type of discussions tend to end up in defending personal choices in camera gear.
Well, that is to be expected.
People tend to put their money where their preferences are, do they not?
Looking at where Nikon is now I am perfectly happy with their offer in camera's and lenses at different sizes and capabilities.
Agree. Their offerings for both are at the top of the heap, quality-wise.
If you go to
LenScore, Nikon makes
4 out of the Top 10 of the very best prime lenses ... while Zeiss only makes 2, Leica only 2, Canon only 2.
If you look deeper, Nikon makes
9 of the Top 20 prime lenses ... while Canon makes 6, Zeiss makes 3, and Leica stays put at 2.
If you go to
SenScore, Nikon has
6 out of the Top 10 Full-Frame Cameras, Sony has 3, and Canon only 1.
If you look at the Top 10 APS-Cs, Nikon makes
the Top 5 in a row, with Pentax making 3 and Sony only having 2 (and the D500 isn't even in their database yet).
Nikon's D500 just won DPReview's best over all "high-end camera" award for 2016 ... and their "best overall product, period" award as well.
But we cannot deny Nikon is losing marketshare vs. its competitors and will have to change its roadmap - especially at the lower end - to be successful in future.
Nikon already is successful ... they may not be "the biggest" or "the most profitable" ... but they are the leader in top-shelf quality products in many categories.
I disagree with you as to low-end cameras; I think Nikon needs to DUMP the low-end market altogether. It is a loser market, period, in the age of "badass cell phone cameras."
They have all the technology in house to be competitive and bend the trend. And mirrorless will not be the only future, but certainly a big part of it.
Their technology already has Nikon at the top, in quite a few categories ... and they are far and away at the top in AF tech too.
I do agree, they should enter the top-shelf mirrorless marketplace.
